◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲▼Toggle AllToC▲▼Add to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply

Search TextCase SensitiveExact WordsInclude Comments

List of Bookmarks

In my coverageof the French elections, I’ve been vaccilating between optimism and pessimism. Obviously, Le Pen’s result – 34% of the vote – was unprecedentedly good, and her popularity seemed to be especially strong amongst French youth. On the other hand, it was perhaps not as good a result as could have been expected, considering she was facing off against the embodiment of an empty suit politician and representative of a political system that has worked hard to delegitimize itself in the past decade. In particular, her failures to make any inroads amongst the French intellectual and professional class, who control 90%+ of the media and universities, is particularly concerning.

Since then, I’ve taken the time to look through French post-elections opinion polls, and I am now leaning much more towards the pessimist side of things. I will mostly refrain from editorializing and just lay out the data, and maybe some of you could come up with a more positive interpretation.

(a) The commenter AP has suggested that the reason MLP performed reasonably well amongst younger French is because more of them stayed home. Indeed, at 25% of the electorate, the rate of abstention in this election has been the highest since 1969.

Moreover, just as AP posited, abstentionism was concentrated Melenchon supporters (36%) and 18-24 year olds (33%) and 25-34 year olds (34%).

According to this poll, 81% of Melenchon voters in the first round ended up voting for Macron anyway (of those who voted at all, obviously). Any talk of “Red-Brown” alliances remains as chimeric as always.

(b) In the OpinionWay poll released soon after the French elections, it appeared that French women – unusually for nationalist parties – were relatively more supportive of MLP than the men (37% to 33%). This would have been pretty encouraging, since women tend to be more conformist, and a better result for MLP amongst them would imply nationalist ideas are infiltrating the mainstream and becoming less tabboo.

Two consequent polls put paid to that, though. In this poll, men were more supportive of MLP than women (36% to 33%), and another IPSOS poll confirmed that picture (38% to 32%).

Still nowhere close to the 10% point or more gap in male/female voting in the recent US elections, but not a curious exception either.

(c) The biggest #blackpill, though, is the indication that support for MLP ebbs amongst the youngest age group, despite their high abstentionism.

In particular, a voter poll released just now by OpinionWay is extremely encouraging – an amazing 44% of 18-24 year olds said they had voted for Marine Le Pen, compared to just 20% of over 65 year olds… This standards in positive contrast to a poll from the first round, which suggested that Le Pen’s support peaked at 29% in the 35-49 year old bracket, before declining to 21% amongst the youngest voters. It would also be a confirmation of polls from 2015 which indicated that support for the Front National increased monotonically as voters became younger.

OpinionWay, which has a sample of almost 8,000, shouldn’t be dismissed. On the other hand, though, the IFOP survey supports the interpretation that support for MLP peaks amongst the middle-aged, then begins to fall again amongst the youngest voters.

2. Some more observations:

(a) The majority of Macron voters in the second round (57%) were not voting for Macron per se, but against Le Pen.

(b) There were… debates, about who had won the debates. This poll suggests it was Macron – more voters thought more favorably of him afterwards (10%) than of MLP (6%).

(c) The Coming Apart thesis: Of Macron’s voters, 80% said they had benefited from globalization, or at least not lost from it; in constrast, of Le Pen’s voters, some 74% said they were losers from globalization.

Also, a striking graphic from (see right) from The Financial Times in support: Macron won 84% of the vote in the 10th decile of France’s most educated communes, versus 53% in the least educated decile.

…In Versailles, it is shown by the two voting stations in the Satory plateau (No. 10 and No. 11). Marine Le Pen got 64.61% and 53.34% there respectively, against 35.39% and 46.66% for Emmanuel Macron. These are the only voting stations in Versailles that don’t put Macron far ahead. In the town, Macron got 76.15% and Le Pen 23.85%. Abstention was slightly higher on the Satory plateau than in the rest of Versailles. The only people living on the Satory plateau are gendarmes, military personnel and civilians working in the defence industry who benefit from social housing.
The same observation in Nanterre, with voting station 14 which corresponds to the Republic Guard barracks. Marine Le Pen was in front with 54.04% against 45.96% for Macron. The contrast with the rest of the city is also striking here: Macron 83.15% and Le Pen 16.85%.

(i) Abstentionism at about 25% for all religious denominations, except Muslims, of whom 38% abstained.

(ii) Macron actually got a higher result (71%) amongst practicing Catholics than irregular (54%) and non-practising ones(61%). I assume on account of the age difference. The irreligious voted 70% for Macron. Muslims – a near monolithic 92%.

They also asked whom they had voted for in the first round. Fillon is the President of the Catholics. And Muslims vote highly Leftist: 37% for Melenchon, almost twice the national average, and 17% for the Socialist candidate Hamon, almost three times as high as the national average.

4. The only foreign country where Le Pen won? Syria, LOL. (h/t Mohsen)

5. But speaking of Syria, even in the event of an MLP win, their celebration might be premature. While browsing through IFOP’s database of polls, I discovered one more #blackpill for your delectation.

The Front National portrays itself as an anti-immigration, non-interventionist party, and the former at least is definitely true – only 4% of MLP voters support immigration, versus 30% of conservative (Sarkozy) and 60% of leftist (Melenchon/Hollande) voters.

Unfortunately, it seems to be much weaker on the anti-intervention side of the equation.

In the wake of Trump’s strike on Syria, IFOP polled the French on whether they agreed with it or not, and the results are as astounding as they are depressing.

62% of Front National voters and MLP supporters supported the strikes – that is virtually the same as those evil “globalist” En Marche!/Macron supporters.

Ergo for Fillon/conservative voters. Hamon supporters were 50/50, while Melenchon voters were actually opposed, at 45% to 55%.

This raises a disquieting scenario. Assume Marine Le Pen was to get into power by some miracle, and were to find herself hobbled by the universal hostility towards her populist-nationalist program from within and without.

What could she then do to break the deadlock?

Well, if the Trump experience is anything to go by, why not bomb some brown people in the Third World in the wake of the next round of dubious atrocity propaganda, with the quiet approval of her own electorate and the jingoistic cheers of the “moderate” centrists, who will go on to reward her “Presidential” actions with a few weeks of support before digging in their talons again.

AK, I think the immigration part of French public opinion is the best news. IIRC when asked who they liked on the issue more, Le Pen beat Macron something like 50-25%. In other words, a huge chunk of Macrons voters are actually closer to the NF than him. If Fillon had won, which looked likely at the start of the year he was promising to hold a national referendum on the issue. Alas, this looks like yet another lost opportunity to translate an immigration restrictionist political majority into concrete action.

Because people are incredibly stupid, and don't understand how all-important immigration is.

On an off topic note, Orbán is now losing his support among the well-educated in Hungary - not a good omen, even if he still seems to hold his support among the rest. He'll probably easily win in 2018, especially since his opposition consists of incompetent hacks and idiots, but once a credible opposition arises, he'll be finished. It probably won't happen this time, but could easily happen by 2022.

Immigartion into France has gone down dramatically already. To 25 000 last year!

So - Le Pen has already won, just for being there, if you compare these numbers to Germany, which took in another 320 000 in 2016 and will "welcome" 240 000 in 2017 as is estimated by now.

Except for that: Le Pen did not grasp, what's so obnoxiously wrong about EU-financing. Fillon had better and much clearer ideas about necessary reforms of the French economy (at least) than Le Pen. She should have just cold blodedly copied them. People did not trust her, as far as the economy is concerned - and they did not distrust her for no reason.

On the subject of Red-Brown alliances, there’s this to consider. My friend is a political statistician and he says basically, “in western Europe and the US, economic leftism is positively correlated with liberalism, in former Communist countries it’s anticorrelated with liberalism.” E.g. as he puts it, in eastern Europe you’ll find people who say “we should nationalize banks and also crack down on the Gypsies!” and other people who say “we should legalize gay marriage and privatize health services!” Whereas in the US or presumably, France, such a constellation of views would be much rarer. (Well, libertarians exist, but economic leftist / culturally conservative types are much less common).

If there is any hope of a red-brown alliance (that is to say, an alliance broadly between communists and ethnonationalists) it’s going to have to focus on eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and China, or at least start there. Not in countries like America or France.

Also, and I say this in a spirit of mostly friendly criticism, if you want to appeal to the left you really need to stop saying nice things about Richard Spencer, and at least tone down the anti-anti-racist stuff. And more broadly, eastern Europeans of the “red-brown” stripe need to make much more effort to distinguish themselves from interwar fascism than they have done up to this point. The victory over Nazi Germany and the victory over American racism towards Black people really were great moral triumphs. And in large part they were triumphs for the Left in particular. People who look back fondly on the communist days in eastern Europe and on the Great Society in America / its equvalents in western Europe are not going to take kindly to people who express sympathies for Jim Crow, Vichy, Antonescu, Horthy, and so forth, even if they might in principle be sympathetic to ethnonationalist concerns in principle. Nor should they. I’m sympathetic to a lot of ethnic identity concerns, in Europe more so than America, but I think if you want to really build a red brown coalition you absolutely need to separate yourself from the evils of (some) ethnic nationalist regimes of the past, and make it clear why what you’re standing for is not like what they stood for, why your context is different from theirs, and why you won’t repeat their crimes. (FTR, I think this can be done, at least for ‘decent’ ethnic nationalists, it will just take some work, and I think the far left needs to do the same).

The regular commenter here, German Reader, said smething similar over on Rod Dreher’s blog: people who worry about mass immigration in Europe discredit their whole cause when they assume we can simply re-enact the Reconquista and forcibly expel all the Jews to Israel and Muslims to North Africa.

Again, I say this as someone who hopes red-brown alliances, at least red-soft brown, can to some degree become a thing, and who really dislikes the tendency of some on the left to think that by calling something ‘fascist’ or ‘racist’ you can simply dismiss its intellectual or moral claims.

Re-Red/Brown alliance. That is all true. However, the fact that it hasn't worked even in Eastern Europe - there are very real differences between the KPRF and LDPR - just goes to further show how hopeless the project is.

Anyhow, a necessary clarification - I myself am not interested in or invested into any ideological project, including a Red/Brown alliance. I am primarily interested in what works. That is ambiguous, so let me clarify further: I am interested in the preservation of civilization and its betterment.

Things such as mass Third World immigration, dysgenics, and various existential risks imperil civilization.

Socialism per se doesn't imperil civilization, though it seems pretty to clear to me taht free markets have tended to be more conductive to human flourishing. That said, average IQs are clearly more important, so I would be very willing to forego considerable economic freedoms if leftists offered a saner biopolitics (I do, after all, unreservedly support Le Pen over Macron). In practice, however, it is the European leftists who also tend to be the craziest open borders lunatics, so in practice it's not a tradeoff that I personally even have to worry about.

Re-Richard Spencer. As per the above, I'm not on any sort of ideological crusade here. I am not going to say "nice" or "bad" things about people based on how well their ideas jive with a political program that I do not even share.

Also, and I say this in a spirit of mostly friendly criticism, if you want to appeal to the left you really need to stop saying nice things about Richard Spencer, and at least tone down the anti-anti-racist stuff.

I don't think there's much point in trying to appease the "antiracist" sensibilities of mainstream lefties or conservatives. Ok, I can see how in the American context the hardcore alt-right comes across as very heartless and unfeeling; given the history of black-white relations in the US, there might still be a case for generosity towards slave-descended blacks. The situation in Western Europe is very different though. We're not dealing here with some long-established minority with historic grievances and nowhere else to go, but with immigrant communities of very recent origin who have benefited massively from European welfare states, and caused a disproportionate amount of trouble in return. There's also the whole issue how you're dealt with by mainstream society as a nationalist. Here in Germany it's basically open season on AfD politicians (who, despite a few dodgy characters, on the whole are definitely not Nazis, not even comparable to someone like Richard Spencer). They can expect not only to have their cars torched or their houses vandalized, but actually to be beaten up and threatened with death by Antifa activists. And there's deafening silence about this (which I interpret as tacit approval) by mainstream left-wingers and conservatives who instead constantly parade their "antiracist" credentials. I don't think there should be any attempt at dialogue or finding common ground under those conditions. You don't talk to people who want to destroy you.
Regarding Richard Spencer, I really don't get why the guy gets all that attention. It's not like he's a serious thinker or actually important, despite his bizarre delusions about his own personal grandeur.

you really need to stop saying nice things about Richard Spencer, and at least tone down the anti-anti-racist stuff

The problem with this idea is that the fight against anti-racism is in and of itself of vital importance.

The anti-racist taboo (including the related anti-anti-Semitism taboo) is the front line in the current leftist drive to suppress freedom of speech, and it is what justifies their generally illiberal approach to political and social dissent. It also is used highly effectively to distort domestic policy on immigration and foreign policy on Israel-related matters.

The political costs you identify to confronting it head on are very real, but the alternative you suggest, of trying to evade it and appease its advocates, will only draw more aggressive attacks an enable it to become ever more entrenched. For certain it will be much harder fighting past these taboos, but if they are accepted then any likely victory is likely to be the same as almost all other recent supposed "victories for the political right" in the US sphere in the past few decades: pseudo-victories that are actually disguised defeats, or acceptances of defeat.

. The victory over Nazi Germany and the victory over American racism towards Black people really were great moral triumphs.

Since this triumph black people are more likely to be murdered, more likely to be in prison, more likely to be on drugs, more likely to grow up in a dysfunctional home, more likely to be victim of violent crime and more likely to be unemployed.

On the plus side, a talented tenth of blacks no longer have to live among other blacks and can walk into job they want by showing up.

Looking at these polls, it appears neither Melanchon's nor Fillon's supporters want anything to do with the FN.

Maybe the FN needs to come to think of themselves as "The True French."

France appears to be a lost cause. Let the rest of them have as much Islam as they wish. The FN is concentrated in certain areas, make those strongholds. Then engage in a cynical program of shamelessly wresting every last drop from the government teat, all while engaged in massive tax evasion on a personal level.

Make those stronghold areas. Given France's economic issues (and most of the other nations in the EU), I don't think the center is going to hold very much longer.

Maybe the Reconquista needs to be in France this time. There are a number of countries in the world where different groups exist in various states of uneasy peace. Well for a time.

Would be better to save France, but I guess that's not possible with anyone who wouldn't vote for Le Pen in this election. My god, Muslims kill people with axes in train stations, engage in other acts of terrorism, rape, ... all while doing nothing productive while sucking on the teats of the welfare state.

If that's not enough to convince anyone, it can't be done, or isn't worth anyone's time.

Maybe in twenty or thirty years Russia or China might provide support for an attempt to reclaim Paris. I don't know what happens to that place if the French welfare state breaks down. It may not be worth taking back honestly. All the churches will have been burned. Anything valuable will have been extracted and sold. All the works of art will have been looted, and sold to anyone interested across the world. The universities will converted to chickenshit Madrassas, and all the books in the libraries will be burned (except the ones they can sell).

AK, I think the immigration part of French public opinion is the best news. IIRC when asked who they liked on the issue more, Le Pen beat Macron something like 50-25%. In other words, a huge chunk of Macrons voters are actually closer to the NF than him. If Fillon had won, which looked likely at the start of the year he was promising to hold a national referendum on the issue. Alas, this looks like yet another lost opportunity to translate an immigration restrictionist political majority into concrete action.

Because people are incredibly stupid, and don’t understand how all-important immigration is.

On an off topic note, Orbán is now losing his support among the well-educated in Hungary – not a good omen, even if he still seems to hold his support among the rest. He’ll probably easily win in 2018, especially since his opposition consists of incompetent hacks and idiots, but once a credible opposition arises, he’ll be finished. It probably won’t happen this time, but could easily happen by 2022.

Anyway, I'm curious what you're thoughts are on this, where Thurmer, the leader of the (tiny) Hungarian communist party expresses his support for the Orban immigration policy. I know his party is at Jill Stein levels of support, but still, Jill Stein punches above her weight, and there's at least a sort of kernel of red-brown alliance sentiment there that could develop into something in the future. Since you're Hungarian, what are the relationship between Thurmer and the ethnic nationalist right exactly?

Is there evidence of Orban losing support other than from pollsters? As is no secret and this post confirms, many players in the polling industry, even in the richest countries, lack integrity or competence, often both.

Because people are incredibly stupid, and don't understand how all-important immigration is.

On an off topic note, Orbán is now losing his support among the well-educated in Hungary - not a good omen, even if he still seems to hold his support among the rest. He'll probably easily win in 2018, especially since his opposition consists of incompetent hacks and idiots, but once a credible opposition arises, he'll be finished. It probably won't happen this time, but could easily happen by 2022.

Isn’t he losing a bunch of his well educated support to Jobbik?

Anyway, I’m curious what you’re thoughts are on this, where Thurmer, the leader of the (tiny) Hungarian communist party expresses his support for the Orban immigration policy. I know his party is at Jill Stein levels of support, but still, Jill Stein punches above her weight, and there’s at least a sort of kernel of red-brown alliance sentiment there that could develop into something in the future. Since you’re Hungarian, what are the relationship between Thurmer and the ethnic nationalist right exactly?

But Thürmer doesn't. He's really a relic who's made a good living for himself out of being a leader of a party driven by very old people's nostalgia, who have mostly died by now. I think his daughter was a dating some far-right type for a while, something like ten years ago, but I haven't followed the story because Thürmer has become really unimportant, and he never was very important to begin with.

Anyway, I'm curious what you're thoughts are on this, where Thurmer, the leader of the (tiny) Hungarian communist party expresses his support for the Orban immigration policy. I know his party is at Jill Stein levels of support, but still, Jill Stein punches above her weight, and there's at least a sort of kernel of red-brown alliance sentiment there that could develop into something in the future. Since you're Hungarian, what are the relationship between Thurmer and the ethnic nationalist right exactly?

But Thürmer doesn’t. He’s really a relic who’s made a good living for himself out of being a leader of a party driven by very old people’s nostalgia, who have mostly died by now. I think his daughter was a dating some far-right type for a while, something like ten years ago, but I haven’t followed the story because Thürmer has become really unimportant, and he never was very important to begin with.

"He’s really a relic who’s made a good living for himself out of being a leader of a party driven by very old people’s nostalgia, who have mostly died by now."

On that note, it occurs to be that parties like the KPRF, Bohemia & Moravia communist party, etc. probably would be even weaker than they are if it weren't for the low fertility rates in Eastern Europe. Old people have more political influence than they otherwise would because the median age in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union is quite high. (In Russia that's less the case because their fertility is now rather high by eastern European standards and their life expectancy rather low, but in the Czech Republic for example the median age is 42, which probably accounts for much of the KSCM's continuing relevance).

Well, if the Trump experience is anything to go by, why not bomb some brown people

It’s amazing how this issue brings out the inner faggot in people. Trump bombed an airbase because one of Assad’s goons got a hard on and went too far. Assad will be a bit more on top of things for a year to stop it happening again. No WW3, no quagmire, no nothing. Get over it.

Trump bombed an airbase because one of Assad’s goons got a hard on and went too far.

We don't know why he bombed that airbase, what we know is that it didn't much help him much domestically (they still want to impeach him, you guessed it, for Russia collusion, among other things), and it lengthened the war in Syria (which could only end with an Assad victory - because, as is well-known to everybody even minimally informed, Assad's opposition is incapable of governance, so weakening Assad could only result in the sad deaths of even more children, either in a never-ending civil war like Libya, or in a now longer civil war ending with Assad's victory).

Even if all the claims of an Assad chemical attack were true (which is far from proven, and to be honest, not even quite plausible), this would only mean that Trump would now be conducting his foreign policy based on sad pictures on teevee. Talk about some faggotry.

Not as amazing as the degree to which American murders of foreign servicemen and conscripts bring out the inner hypocrite in most Americans.

The vast majority of the Americans who come out with the kind of faux hard-assed stuff you came out with here are the ones to blub loudest and girliest about dead American soldiers. Whether that applies to you personally, I obviously don't know.

In any case, I don't think Karlin was being sentimental about the victims of US military crimes of aggression. I suspect, like me, he is more concerned about the negative consequences of attacking the side we should be wanting to win in Syria and elsewhere. Worse than crimes, they are blunders.

because one of Assad’s goons got a hard on and went too far

As reiner Tor points out, there's absolutely no good reason to believe the Syrian government was responsible for any chemical attack, and even if it was you can hardly get more faggoty than bombing foreigners because you were shown some nasty pictures.

We're not "faggots" for demanding some actual EVIDENCE to implicate the Syrian government in the alleged gas/chemical attack.

Neither you nor we have any idea whether the thus-far unjustified missile strike on the Syrian base is a harbinger of much bigger, costlier, deadlier unnecessary intervention by the US government in that country. Let's hope not.

On the subject of Red-Brown alliances, there's this to consider. My friend is a political statistician and he says basically, "in western Europe and the US, economic leftism is positively correlated with liberalism, in former Communist countries it's anticorrelated with liberalism." E.g. as he puts it, in eastern Europe you'll find people who say "we should nationalize banks and also crack down on the Gypsies!" and other people who say "we should legalize gay marriage and privatize health services!" Whereas in the US or presumably, France, such a constellation of views would be much rarer. (Well, libertarians exist, but economic leftist / culturally conservative types are much less common).

If there is any hope of a red-brown alliance (that is to say, an alliance broadly between communists and ethnonationalists) it's going to have to focus on eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and China, or at least start there. Not in countries like America or France.

Also, and I say this in a spirit of mostly friendly criticism, if you want to appeal to the left you really need to stop saying nice things about Richard Spencer, and at least tone down the anti-anti-racist stuff. And more broadly, eastern Europeans of the "red-brown" stripe need to make much more effort to distinguish themselves from interwar fascism than they have done up to this point. The victory over Nazi Germany and the victory over American racism towards Black people really were great moral triumphs. And in large part they were triumphs for the Left in particular. People who look back fondly on the communist days in eastern Europe and on the Great Society in America / its equvalents in western Europe are not going to take kindly to people who express sympathies for Jim Crow, Vichy, Antonescu, Horthy, and so forth, even if they might in principle be sympathetic to ethnonationalist concerns in principle. Nor should they. I'm sympathetic to a lot of ethnic identity concerns, in Europe more so than America, but I think if you want to really build a red brown coalition you absolutely need to separate yourself from the evils of (some) ethnic nationalist regimes of the past, and make it clear why what you're standing for is not like what they stood for, why your context is different from theirs, and why you won't repeat their crimes. (FTR, I think this can be done, at least for 'decent' ethnic nationalists, it will just take some work, and I think the far left needs to do the same).

The regular commenter here, German Reader, said smething similar over on Rod Dreher's blog: people who worry about mass immigration in Europe discredit their whole cause when they assume we can simply re-enact the Reconquista and forcibly expel all the Jews to Israel and Muslims to North Africa.

Again, I say this as someone who hopes red-brown alliances, at least red-soft brown, can to some degree become a thing, and who really dislikes the tendency of some on the left to think that by calling something 'fascist' or 'racist' you can simply dismiss its intellectual or moral claims.

Re-Red/Brown alliance. That is all true. However, the fact that it hasn’t worked even in Eastern Europe – there are very real differences between the KPRF and LDPR – just goes to further show how hopeless the project is.

Anyhow, a necessary clarification – I myself am not interested in or invested into any ideological project, including a Red/Brown alliance. I am primarily interested in what works. That is ambiguous, so let me clarify further: I am interested in the preservation of civilization and its betterment.

Things such as mass Third World immigration, dysgenics, and various existential risks imperil civilization.

Socialism per se doesn’t imperil civilization, though it seems pretty to clear to me taht free markets have tended to be more conductive to human flourishing. That said, average IQs are clearly more important, so I would be very willing to forego considerable economic freedoms if leftists offered a saner biopolitics (I do, after all, unreservedly support Le Pen over Macron). In practice, however, it is the European leftists who also tend to be the craziest open borders lunatics, so in practice it’s not a tradeoff that I personally even have to worry about.

Re-Richard Spencer. As per the above, I’m not on any sort of ideological crusade here. I am not going to say “nice” or “bad” things about people based on how well their ideas jive with a political program that I do not even share.

"That said, average IQs are clearly more important, so I would be very willing to forego considerable economic freedoms if leftists offered a saner biopolitics (I do, after all, unreservedly support Le Pen over Macron)."

Funny note, since you said that. I know another guy (on the Left, but also a HBD believer) who said that in his view it would have better for Malaysia if the Communist rebels had won. As he puts it, "central planning is usually a bad idea, but the economic loss you would take from central planning is probably less than the economic gain from being governed by ethnic Chinese instead of ethnic Malays."

Let me respond to a couple more things you said in more detail, now I've had a day to think.

Thank you for the clarification: I was unaware that you really don't have a political program of any sorts. Even still though, regarding "not being on an ideological crusade here", of course it's your blog and you can talk, or not talk, about whatever you feel like. I'm grateful to you for providing a space for discourse, so I'm not inclined to try to suggest to you what to talk about. That said, if it were me, I would feel both an intellectual and to some extent a moral obligation to try to clarify my opinion on both where I agreed and where I disagreed with other ethnic nationalists of the present and the past, to offer some kind of indications as to why my ideas would avoid the worst evils associated with some ethnic nationalists in the past, and to express something about the limits beyond which ethnic nationalism ought not to go. I'm someone who, after all, has been tarred alternately as a communist, a fascist, and a theocrat, so I'm not unfamiliar with having to clarify my opinions and to express exactly what I agree with and what I disagree with about such regimes. Ethnic nationalism is probably the most significant political trend in the world right now, it is unquestionably going to shape the medium term future of much of Europe, and probably other parts of the world as well. To a great extent (in my view) I think it will do so for good, but it has great potential for evil as well. I think those of us who are sympathetic to the tiger that's been unleashed, at least to some extent, have the obligation to use our intellectual and moral influence to try to control it and to tame its worst potential for excesses, and to criticize it when it goes too far. Then again, that's just what I would do: you're free to make or not to make whatever statement you choose. I know you don't support things like Mr. Spencer's creepy Nazi-esque cosplay, nor his dream of making America a white people's homeland, nor the fantasies of some European tribalists about re-enacting the Spanish Reconquista and forcibly expelling all Muslims and Jews from Europe: neither do I.

On a more concrete note, regarding Red-Brown alliances, I don't think the case for their being hopeless in eastern Europe is as clear as you suggest. Let's take a few countries in order. And let me specify that when I say red-brown I mean *red* and *brown*, i.e. alliances between the far left and ethnonationalists, not liberals or the centre left.

Poland- there is no 'red' in Poland, so question doesn't apply.
Hungary - the one truly "Red" party is as reiner Tor says, electorally irrelevant, so it doesn't even matter. That said, Thurmer has gone on record as supporting Orban's immigration policy, so it's certainly possible.
Czech Republic- they have a significant 'Red' party but no significant 'Brown' party. This is probably because all the major parties are already quite tough on immigration, so they don't feel the need for one. That being said, the "Reds" have gone on record opposing the mass resettlement of migrants in the CR, as has the Social-Democratic president Zeman. So I think you could argue here that the Reds already have a shade of brown in them.
Russia- as you correctly point out, the KPRF and the LDPR disagree on a whole hell of a lot, and are not going to ally any time soon. That's fine though because the KPRF is already more critical of immigration than Putin is. E.g. consider how they responded to the Uzbek nanny gate scandal, or the statement that they issued about how mass immigration was a product of capitalist-induced inequality between nations. Again I think we can say the Reds here already have a shade of brown.
Fico- probably the best example of the left in power pursuing a culturally conservative "Brown" agenda. He's the best example.
Romania- the Greater Romania party was a quite influential red brown alliance in the 1990s, but I suppose they're defunct today. That said, there are some politicians in the socialist party who are trying to form a "social-patriot" movement critical of immigration.
Bulgaria- the Socialists endorsed an anti-migration general for president last year. IIRC the Ataka party is also left wing on economics while being ultra-nationalist.

I don't think the case for red-brown alliances being hopeless, at least in the east, is as clear going forward as you think. In France, yes, you're right that they have shown to be hopeless, as MLP's failure demonstrates.

Well, if the Trump experience is anything to go by, why not bomb some brown people

It's amazing how this issue brings out the inner faggot in people. Trump bombed an airbase because one of Assad's goons got a hard on and went too far. Assad will be a bit more on top of things for a year to stop it happening again. No WW3, no quagmire, no nothing. Get over it.

Trump bombed an airbase because one of Assad’s goons got a hard on and went too far.

We don’t know why he bombed that airbase, what we know is that it didn’t much help him much domestically (they still want to impeach him, you guessed it, for Russia collusion, among other things), and it lengthened the war in Syria (which could only end with an Assad victory – because, as is well-known to everybody even minimally informed, Assad’s opposition is incapable of governance, so weakening Assad could only result in the sad deaths of even more children, either in a never-ending civil war like Libya, or in a now longer civil war ending with Assad’s victory).

Even if all the claims of an Assad chemical attack were true (which is far from proven, and to be honest, not even quite plausible), this would only mean that Trump would now be conducting his foreign policy based on sad pictures on teevee. Talk about some faggotry.

because, as is well-known to everybody even minimally informed, Assad’s opposition is incapable of governance

Islamic fundamentalists do a pretty good job of running Saudi Arabia and a so-so job of running Iran. The myth that secular leaders are better at running countries than religious fundamentalists is just another piece of retro leftism that the alt right have jumped on to for want of being able to come up with their own ideas.

Obviously, the best thing would simply be for some other country to take over and run Syria. Russia has local connections, so they could do it. Saudi Arabia would probably do pretty well too. The problem is we can't have imperialism any more, but that's not Trump's fault. It's not really anyone's fault, it's just the rules we inherited from people long dead who didn't really know what they were doing either.

Racially and religiously diverse countries with low human capital and excess unemployable males just shouldn't govern themselves. Period. But they do, and there we are.

Even if all the claims of an Assad chemical attack were true (which is far from proven, and to be honest, not even quite plausible)

There's nothing even mildly implausible about it. You don't even have to bring in HBD. Look at atrocities during the American civil war. What do you think they would have done if they had chemical weapons?

But none of this matters. Trump bombed an airbase; people who watch NASCAR thought this was cool; his wife gave him a blow job; nothing bad came of it, no-one cares except monomaniacs.

this would only mean that Trump would now be conducting his foreign policy based on sad pictures on teevee.

That isn't why he did it. He has to work with the GOP leadership, the armed services and with our allies abroad. His credibility would have been fatally damaged if he hadn't done something. So he made a statement and did a show bombing but did nothing that actually hurt Assad.

On the subject of Red-Brown alliances, there's this to consider. My friend is a political statistician and he says basically, "in western Europe and the US, economic leftism is positively correlated with liberalism, in former Communist countries it's anticorrelated with liberalism." E.g. as he puts it, in eastern Europe you'll find people who say "we should nationalize banks and also crack down on the Gypsies!" and other people who say "we should legalize gay marriage and privatize health services!" Whereas in the US or presumably, France, such a constellation of views would be much rarer. (Well, libertarians exist, but economic leftist / culturally conservative types are much less common).

If there is any hope of a red-brown alliance (that is to say, an alliance broadly between communists and ethnonationalists) it's going to have to focus on eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and China, or at least start there. Not in countries like America or France.

Also, and I say this in a spirit of mostly friendly criticism, if you want to appeal to the left you really need to stop saying nice things about Richard Spencer, and at least tone down the anti-anti-racist stuff. And more broadly, eastern Europeans of the "red-brown" stripe need to make much more effort to distinguish themselves from interwar fascism than they have done up to this point. The victory over Nazi Germany and the victory over American racism towards Black people really were great moral triumphs. And in large part they were triumphs for the Left in particular. People who look back fondly on the communist days in eastern Europe and on the Great Society in America / its equvalents in western Europe are not going to take kindly to people who express sympathies for Jim Crow, Vichy, Antonescu, Horthy, and so forth, even if they might in principle be sympathetic to ethnonationalist concerns in principle. Nor should they. I'm sympathetic to a lot of ethnic identity concerns, in Europe more so than America, but I think if you want to really build a red brown coalition you absolutely need to separate yourself from the evils of (some) ethnic nationalist regimes of the past, and make it clear why what you're standing for is not like what they stood for, why your context is different from theirs, and why you won't repeat their crimes. (FTR, I think this can be done, at least for 'decent' ethnic nationalists, it will just take some work, and I think the far left needs to do the same).

The regular commenter here, German Reader, said smething similar over on Rod Dreher's blog: people who worry about mass immigration in Europe discredit their whole cause when they assume we can simply re-enact the Reconquista and forcibly expel all the Jews to Israel and Muslims to North Africa.

Again, I say this as someone who hopes red-brown alliances, at least red-soft brown, can to some degree become a thing, and who really dislikes the tendency of some on the left to think that by calling something 'fascist' or 'racist' you can simply dismiss its intellectual or moral claims.

Also, and I say this in a spirit of mostly friendly criticism, if you want to appeal to the left you really need to stop saying nice things about Richard Spencer, and at least tone down the anti-anti-racist stuff.

I don’t think there’s much point in trying to appease the “antiracist” sensibilities of mainstream lefties or conservatives. Ok, I can see how in the American context the hardcore alt-right comes across as very heartless and unfeeling; given the history of black-white relations in the US, there might still be a case for generosity towards slave-descended blacks. The situation in Western Europe is very different though. We’re not dealing here with some long-established minority with historic grievances and nowhere else to go, but with immigrant communities of very recent origin who have benefited massively from European welfare states, and caused a disproportionate amount of trouble in return. There’s also the whole issue how you’re dealt with by mainstream society as a nationalist. Here in Germany it’s basically open season on AfD politicians (who, despite a few dodgy characters, on the whole are definitely not Nazis, not even comparable to someone like Richard Spencer). They can expect not only to have their cars torched or their houses vandalized, but actually to be beaten up and threatened with death by Antifa activists. And there’s deafening silence about this (which I interpret as tacit approval) by mainstream left-wingers and conservatives who instead constantly parade their “antiracist” credentials. I don’t think there should be any attempt at dialogue or finding common ground under those conditions. You don’t talk to people who want to destroy you.
Regarding Richard Spencer, I really don’t get why the guy gets all that attention. It’s not like he’s a serious thinker or actually important, despite his bizarre delusions about his own personal grandeur.

It’s not like he’s a serious thinker or actually important, despite his bizarre delusions about his own personal grandeur.

He's important because he went out there and took personal risks (like being sucker-punched in the head) to spread some message. He's also a bit photogenic, though of course he's also a 'sperg like the rest of us. Since nobody else smarter and/or better looking is willing to spread a similar message, he's gotten all the attention.

I don't think his arguments are very good, and I don't even agree with him on a lot of issues. By the way, he's a bit pro-Stalinist (probably influenced by his wife) in that he has denied on Twitter that the holodomor was a genocide at all, says it was just an unintended consequence of some disastrous economic policies and natural disasters. (As far as I know, there's no evidence for that; I read that in the early thirties there was no severe drought.) In any event, is that really fashy at all?

I know you're not American and so probably don't 'internalize' the American social context (and I agree with you that from what I can tell the dynamics are very different in Europe). You're correct that America is in a very different historical position here, and I personally find it super-annoying when people try to interpret European, Asian, Latin American or African politics through the lens of the American civil rights struggle. E.g. when people try to ask "Who are the Blacks in Malaysia? Who are the whites in Yugoslavia?"

Having said that, it's not that there 'might be' a case for generosity towards US Black people: there definitely is a very strong one. If we're concerned about the rights of ethnic groups to thrive in their ancestral land, America is at least as much the homeland of Black people as it is most white people. Most white Americans draw a large chunk of their ancestry from post-1845 and in many cases much more recent migration (from Ireland, Italy, Eastern Europe, Germany, Scandinavia, etc.): the ancestry of black Americans derives mostly from slaves who were brought here prior to 1808. Black Americans have a very strong case that they were treated horribly during the decades of segregation and even more during two centuries or so of slavery. I think anyone who's sympathetic to ethnic nationalist causes in principle need to do a much better cause of regognizing the legitimate interests of Black Americans and their legitimate hostility to the idea that America isn't their country. (N.B. there's nothing in Black American culture that should militate inherently against the idea of ethnic nationalism. Malcolm X, famously, believed in separate states for separate ethnic groups. Modern day Black Americans have embraced liberalism largely because the Republican Party embraced causes and historical trends that Black Americans view with extreme suspicion, and with good reason. Trump's tone-deaf language in speaking to African-Americans, and his embrace of tough criminal justice policies and willingness to cut the welfare state, have only cemented that suspicion).

I fully agree that Europe is in a very different position here- there are no "African-Americans of Europe". As you point out, the European ethnic nationalists represent the indigenous populations here, and most of the ethnic minority populations are of very recent origin, came over voluntarily, and have in many cases caused quite a bit of trouble. That having been said, European ethnic nationalists have their own historical baggage that they need to divest themselves of. Cf. M. Jalkh's comment's about the Nazi death camps, the Greater Romania Party's attempt to appeal fondly to the memory of both Antonescu and Ceaucescu, the inexplicable fondness of Jobbik and the Slovak National Party for the interwar fascist states, etc.. I would recommend that if you want to win people over, you kind of have to not do those things.

As for this:

"I don’t think there should be any attempt at dialogue or finding common ground under those conditions. You don’t talk to people who want to destroy you."

Well, A) this is exactly what the 'antifa' liberals say, and B) this is not going to be a successful strategy when you're a small minority of the population. Ethnic nationalists can win elections in eastern Europe, maybe, but in much of western Europe they're a minority of the population that's viewed as toxic by everyone else. You want that to change, and in many cases I'm sympathetic to you, but if you want to do that then yes, you kind of need to talk to people who want to destroy you and convince them not to destroy you, and that you're not as bad as they think. The Danish ethnic nationalists have done this successfully. Thus far the French and German ones haven't, and I'm not optimistic they will be able to.

Well, if the Trump experience is anything to go by, why not bomb some brown people

It's amazing how this issue brings out the inner faggot in people. Trump bombed an airbase because one of Assad's goons got a hard on and went too far. Assad will be a bit more on top of things for a year to stop it happening again. No WW3, no quagmire, no nothing. Get over it.

It’s amazing how this issue brings out the inner faggot in people

Not as amazing as the degree to which American murders of foreign servicemen and conscripts bring out the inner hypocrite in most Americans.

The vast majority of the Americans who come out with the kind of faux hard-assed stuff you came out with here are the ones to blub loudest and girliest about dead American soldiers. Whether that applies to you personally, I obviously don’t know.

In any case, I don’t think Karlin was being sentimental about the victims of US military crimes of aggression. I suspect, like me, he is more concerned about the negative consequences of attacking the side we should be wanting to win in Syria and elsewhere. Worse than crimes, they are blunders.

because one of Assad’s goons got a hard on and went too far

As reiner Tor points out, there’s absolutely no good reason to believe the Syrian government was responsible for any chemical attack, and even if it was you can hardly get more faggoty than bombing foreigners because you were shown some nasty pictures.

In any case, I don’t think Karlin was being sentimental about the victims of US military crimes of aggression.

No, he was making a casual allegation of racism = faggotry. 'Bombing brown people' is the most faggoty lefty meme there is. In all probability it originated in one of Soros' operations. All you need to do is type 'bomb brown people' into Google and it's like you've been teleported into Berkeley.

Trump bombed an airbase because one of Assad’s goons got a hard on and went too far.

We don't know why he bombed that airbase, what we know is that it didn't much help him much domestically (they still want to impeach him, you guessed it, for Russia collusion, among other things), and it lengthened the war in Syria (which could only end with an Assad victory - because, as is well-known to everybody even minimally informed, Assad's opposition is incapable of governance, so weakening Assad could only result in the sad deaths of even more children, either in a never-ending civil war like Libya, or in a now longer civil war ending with Assad's victory).

Even if all the claims of an Assad chemical attack were true (which is far from proven, and to be honest, not even quite plausible), this would only mean that Trump would now be conducting his foreign policy based on sad pictures on teevee. Talk about some faggotry.

because, as is well-known to everybody even minimally informed, Assad’s opposition is incapable of governance

Islamic fundamentalists do a pretty good job of running Saudi Arabia and a so-so job of running Iran. The myth that secular leaders are better at running countries than religious fundamentalists is just another piece of retro leftism that the alt right have jumped on to for want of being able to come up with their own ideas.

Obviously, the best thing would simply be for some other country to take over and run Syria. Russia has local connections, so they could do it. Saudi Arabia would probably do pretty well too. The problem is we can’t have imperialism any more, but that’s not Trump’s fault. It’s not really anyone’s fault, it’s just the rules we inherited from people long dead who didn’t really know what they were doing either.

Racially and religiously diverse countries with low human capital and excess unemployable males just shouldn’t govern themselves. Period. But they do, and there we are.

Even if all the claims of an Assad chemical attack were true (which is far from proven, and to be honest, not even quite plausible)

There’s nothing even mildly implausible about it. You don’t even have to bring in HBD. Look at atrocities during the American civil war. What do you think they would have done if they had chemical weapons?

But none of this matters. Trump bombed an airbase; people who watch NASCAR thought this was cool; his wife gave him a blow job; nothing bad came of it, no-one cares except monomaniacs.

Islamic fundamentalists do a pretty good job of running Saudi Arabia and a so-so job of running Iran

Seems dubious to me, it's quite likely imo Saudi-Arabia will blow up (maybe at some point in the 2020s) when they're running out of their ill-deserved oil money and have to cut back welfare programmes.
As for Iran, who knows, the place might not have reached its full potential and do much better without the Islamic regime.

Apart from the fact that it's inherently ridiculous to suppose that the Syrian government would even consider allowing even the possibility of a chemical weapons attack, given such an attack can never produce more than trivial tactical gains and carries the real risk of snatching strategic defeat from the very jaws of victory in almost the only way it is plausibly capable of happening now - Libya-style.

To overcome that degree of inherent strategic absurdity, you'd need a lot more than all the questionable allegations and supposed findings from partisan groups and governments that have been paraded so far.

1) they would cleanse it of all Christians and probably most of urban elites, which would make it probably less efficient than the hopelessly inefficient Assad regime has ever been

2) there are at least two very large (already named) and a few smaller Islamist factions, and many of them are prone to further fission

3) the Libyan example shows that such loosely coordinated rebel factions tend to turn on each other once the evil dictator was toppled

4) even if one rebel faction managed to win and end the civil war, a lot of the population would still dislike it because the Syrian government wouldn't have as much money as the Saudi government does currently have (at current oil prices, for a few more years; then, we'll see)

There’s nothing even mildly implausible about it.

First, it's questionable if it really was sarin or not. The Syrians and Russians have offered to open up the airport in question to a serious investigation (traces of sarin could be detected long after it's gone, so if it was true, they'd be taking a lot of risks here - of course, nobody was interested in the investigation), and the fact that the White Helmets were touching the victims with their bare hands also points that it could easily have been something other than sarin.

Second, such a bombing makes no sense at all. It was far from the front, basically a terror bombing with one bomb only. What did Assad (or his general) even try to accomplish here? This is the main point to me: it made no military sense at all. Bombing a besieged town would've made sense, perhaps even with one bomb. Bombing a far away town firmly in al-Qaeda hands made no sense whatsoever, except if the goal was to produce videos of suffering children.

And of course, having opened up the airport to investigation, the Russians and Syrians could've suffered if someone called their bluffs. Nobody did. Why?

Also, and I say this in a spirit of mostly friendly criticism, if you want to appeal to the left you really need to stop saying nice things about Richard Spencer, and at least tone down the anti-anti-racist stuff.

I don't think there's much point in trying to appease the "antiracist" sensibilities of mainstream lefties or conservatives. Ok, I can see how in the American context the hardcore alt-right comes across as very heartless and unfeeling; given the history of black-white relations in the US, there might still be a case for generosity towards slave-descended blacks. The situation in Western Europe is very different though. We're not dealing here with some long-established minority with historic grievances and nowhere else to go, but with immigrant communities of very recent origin who have benefited massively from European welfare states, and caused a disproportionate amount of trouble in return. There's also the whole issue how you're dealt with by mainstream society as a nationalist. Here in Germany it's basically open season on AfD politicians (who, despite a few dodgy characters, on the whole are definitely not Nazis, not even comparable to someone like Richard Spencer). They can expect not only to have their cars torched or their houses vandalized, but actually to be beaten up and threatened with death by Antifa activists. And there's deafening silence about this (which I interpret as tacit approval) by mainstream left-wingers and conservatives who instead constantly parade their "antiracist" credentials. I don't think there should be any attempt at dialogue or finding common ground under those conditions. You don't talk to people who want to destroy you.
Regarding Richard Spencer, I really don't get why the guy gets all that attention. It's not like he's a serious thinker or actually important, despite his bizarre delusions about his own personal grandeur.

It’s not like he’s a serious thinker or actually important, despite his bizarre delusions about his own personal grandeur.

He’s important because he went out there and took personal risks (like being sucker-punched in the head) to spread some message. He’s also a bit photogenic, though of course he’s also a ‘sperg like the rest of us. Since nobody else smarter and/or better looking is willing to spread a similar message, he’s gotten all the attention.

I don’t think his arguments are very good, and I don’t even agree with him on a lot of issues. By the way, he’s a bit pro-Stalinist (probably influenced by his wife) in that he has denied on Twitter that the holodomor was a genocide at all, says it was just an unintended consequence of some disastrous economic policies and natural disasters. (As far as I know, there’s no evidence for that; I read that in the early thirties there was no severe drought.) In any event, is that really fashy at all?

Maybe it's unfair (and I have to admit, I've never myself taken the risk of being punched by violent lefties), but frankly, Richard Spencer comes across like a silly narcissist to me. He seems in love with the idea of his own importance...when in fact he's just got a crappy website and a Twitter account. Also all those dumb references to popular culture (e.g. there's now a picture from a James Bond movie on his Twitter account...yeah, because ironic references to trashy low-brow entertainment will save the white race, haha)...just silly imo, no comparison to the more successful nationalist politicians in Europe.
I think the whole alt-right phenomenon is massively overestimated tbh. You can see this in the reaction by Trump supporters to the Syria missile strikes...large majority in favour. Those people probably have never even heard of the alt-right and Spencer. So I think Spencer will probably just become a kind of David Duke-like bogeyman for US media, a role which he seems to like...don't see him ever becoming truly influential.

Given the level of FN support among the military and the gendarmerie, perhaps a military coup is a possibility in France? France had an abortive military coup around 1960. If the Macron economic reforms lead to general strikes and riots by unions and civil servants, and if there are one or more major terrorist attacks, I don’t think a coup can be ruled out. A Macron type inspires no confidence whatsoever in the police or the military. They might conclude that a French electorate that puts such an obvious “empty suit” in the Elysée needs governance by a stronger hand.

Not as amazing as the degree to which American murders of foreign servicemen and conscripts bring out the inner hypocrite in most Americans.

The vast majority of the Americans who come out with the kind of faux hard-assed stuff you came out with here are the ones to blub loudest and girliest about dead American soldiers. Whether that applies to you personally, I obviously don't know.

In any case, I don't think Karlin was being sentimental about the victims of US military crimes of aggression. I suspect, like me, he is more concerned about the negative consequences of attacking the side we should be wanting to win in Syria and elsewhere. Worse than crimes, they are blunders.

because one of Assad’s goons got a hard on and went too far

As reiner Tor points out, there's absolutely no good reason to believe the Syrian government was responsible for any chemical attack, and even if it was you can hardly get more faggoty than bombing foreigners because you were shown some nasty pictures.

In any case, I don’t think Karlin was being sentimental about the victims of US military crimes of aggression.

No, he was making a casual allegation of racism = faggotry. ‘Bombing brown people’ is the most faggoty lefty meme there is. In all probability it originated in one of Soros’ operations. All you need to do is type ‘bomb brown people’ into Google and it’s like you’ve been teleported into Berkeley.

"Bombing brown people" is in a sense an aspect of the strategy Hector St Clare suggests above, of seeking to bring leftists on board with non-interventionism by playing on their sympathies rather than confronting them.

Faggoty or not, it's an effective political tactic. For every one bomb-happy interventionist hypocrite (I don't believe you'd be as cynically relaxed if the boot were on the other foot and Americans were the target) like you who finds it annoying, there are ten leftists who are nodding along with it (maybe not as many in this particular forum, obviously). It directly attacks the "R2P" idiocy that most leftists knee-jerk along to when the establishment needs them on board for some murderous act of military aggression.

It’s not like he’s a serious thinker or actually important, despite his bizarre delusions about his own personal grandeur.

He's important because he went out there and took personal risks (like being sucker-punched in the head) to spread some message. He's also a bit photogenic, though of course he's also a 'sperg like the rest of us. Since nobody else smarter and/or better looking is willing to spread a similar message, he's gotten all the attention.

I don't think his arguments are very good, and I don't even agree with him on a lot of issues. By the way, he's a bit pro-Stalinist (probably influenced by his wife) in that he has denied on Twitter that the holodomor was a genocide at all, says it was just an unintended consequence of some disastrous economic policies and natural disasters. (As far as I know, there's no evidence for that; I read that in the early thirties there was no severe drought.) In any event, is that really fashy at all?

Maybe it’s unfair (and I have to admit, I’ve never myself taken the risk of being punched by violent lefties), but frankly, Richard Spencer comes across like a silly narcissist to me. He seems in love with the idea of his own importance…when in fact he’s just got a crappy website and a Twitter account. Also all those dumb references to popular culture (e.g. there’s now a picture from a James Bond movie on his Twitter account…yeah, because ironic references to trashy low-brow entertainment will save the white race, haha)…just silly imo, no comparison to the more successful nationalist politicians in Europe.
I think the whole alt-right phenomenon is massively overestimated tbh. You can see this in the reaction by Trump supporters to the Syria missile strikes…large majority in favour. Those people probably have never even heard of the alt-right and Spencer. So I think Spencer will probably just become a kind of David Duke-like bogeyman for US media, a role which he seems to like…don’t see him ever becoming truly influential.

On the subject of Red-Brown alliances, there's this to consider. My friend is a political statistician and he says basically, "in western Europe and the US, economic leftism is positively correlated with liberalism, in former Communist countries it's anticorrelated with liberalism." E.g. as he puts it, in eastern Europe you'll find people who say "we should nationalize banks and also crack down on the Gypsies!" and other people who say "we should legalize gay marriage and privatize health services!" Whereas in the US or presumably, France, such a constellation of views would be much rarer. (Well, libertarians exist, but economic leftist / culturally conservative types are much less common).

If there is any hope of a red-brown alliance (that is to say, an alliance broadly between communists and ethnonationalists) it's going to have to focus on eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and China, or at least start there. Not in countries like America or France.

Also, and I say this in a spirit of mostly friendly criticism, if you want to appeal to the left you really need to stop saying nice things about Richard Spencer, and at least tone down the anti-anti-racist stuff. And more broadly, eastern Europeans of the "red-brown" stripe need to make much more effort to distinguish themselves from interwar fascism than they have done up to this point. The victory over Nazi Germany and the victory over American racism towards Black people really were great moral triumphs. And in large part they were triumphs for the Left in particular. People who look back fondly on the communist days in eastern Europe and on the Great Society in America / its equvalents in western Europe are not going to take kindly to people who express sympathies for Jim Crow, Vichy, Antonescu, Horthy, and so forth, even if they might in principle be sympathetic to ethnonationalist concerns in principle. Nor should they. I'm sympathetic to a lot of ethnic identity concerns, in Europe more so than America, but I think if you want to really build a red brown coalition you absolutely need to separate yourself from the evils of (some) ethnic nationalist regimes of the past, and make it clear why what you're standing for is not like what they stood for, why your context is different from theirs, and why you won't repeat their crimes. (FTR, I think this can be done, at least for 'decent' ethnic nationalists, it will just take some work, and I think the far left needs to do the same).

The regular commenter here, German Reader, said smething similar over on Rod Dreher's blog: people who worry about mass immigration in Europe discredit their whole cause when they assume we can simply re-enact the Reconquista and forcibly expel all the Jews to Israel and Muslims to North Africa.

Again, I say this as someone who hopes red-brown alliances, at least red-soft brown, can to some degree become a thing, and who really dislikes the tendency of some on the left to think that by calling something 'fascist' or 'racist' you can simply dismiss its intellectual or moral claims.

you really need to stop saying nice things about Richard Spencer, and at least tone down the anti-anti-racist stuff

The problem with this idea is that the fight against anti-racism is in and of itself of vital importance.

The anti-racist taboo (including the related anti-anti-Semitism taboo) is the front line in the current leftist drive to suppress freedom of speech, and it is what justifies their generally illiberal approach to political and social dissent. It also is used highly effectively to distort domestic policy on immigration and foreign policy on Israel-related matters.

The political costs you identify to confronting it head on are very real, but the alternative you suggest, of trying to evade it and appease its advocates, will only draw more aggressive attacks an enable it to become ever more entrenched. For certain it will be much harder fighting past these taboos, but if they are accepted then any likely victory is likely to be the same as almost all other recent supposed “victories for the political right” in the US sphere in the past few decades: pseudo-victories that are actually disguised defeats, or acceptances of defeat.

But Thürmer doesn't. He's really a relic who's made a good living for himself out of being a leader of a party driven by very old people's nostalgia, who have mostly died by now. I think his daughter was a dating some far-right type for a while, something like ten years ago, but I haven't followed the story because Thürmer has become really unimportant, and he never was very important to begin with.

“He’s really a relic who’s made a good living for himself out of being a leader of a party driven by very old people’s nostalgia, who have mostly died by now.”

On that note, it occurs to be that parties like the KPRF, Bohemia & Moravia communist party, etc. probably would be even weaker than they are if it weren’t for the low fertility rates in Eastern Europe. Old people have more political influence than they otherwise would because the median age in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union is quite high. (In Russia that’s less the case because their fertility is now rather high by eastern European standards and their life expectancy rather low, but in the Czech Republic for example the median age is 42, which probably accounts for much of the KSCM’s continuing relevance).

This really shouldn’t come as a surprise, mlp was always going to get under 40%. The real blackpill was the sabotaging of Fillon in favour of this Macron weasel. I think the issue with “coming apart” is that in some sense, it hasn’t really happened. The actual elite is a very small proportion of the population. The most educated decile of the french population tink they’re beneficiaries of globilisation, but, without inherited wealth, theyre worse off than many blue collar workers were a generation ago. No extortionate college fees though, so plenty of grist for the mill. Comparentrast this with Turkey, where you have an arrogant urban bourgeoisie who are too small in number to stop the Turkish deplorables. The death penalty referendum over there should provide some entertaining triggerings of eurolibs.

On the subject of Red-Brown alliances, there's this to consider. My friend is a political statistician and he says basically, "in western Europe and the US, economic leftism is positively correlated with liberalism, in former Communist countries it's anticorrelated with liberalism." E.g. as he puts it, in eastern Europe you'll find people who say "we should nationalize banks and also crack down on the Gypsies!" and other people who say "we should legalize gay marriage and privatize health services!" Whereas in the US or presumably, France, such a constellation of views would be much rarer. (Well, libertarians exist, but economic leftist / culturally conservative types are much less common).

If there is any hope of a red-brown alliance (that is to say, an alliance broadly between communists and ethnonationalists) it's going to have to focus on eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and China, or at least start there. Not in countries like America or France.

Also, and I say this in a spirit of mostly friendly criticism, if you want to appeal to the left you really need to stop saying nice things about Richard Spencer, and at least tone down the anti-anti-racist stuff. And more broadly, eastern Europeans of the "red-brown" stripe need to make much more effort to distinguish themselves from interwar fascism than they have done up to this point. The victory over Nazi Germany and the victory over American racism towards Black people really were great moral triumphs. And in large part they were triumphs for the Left in particular. People who look back fondly on the communist days in eastern Europe and on the Great Society in America / its equvalents in western Europe are not going to take kindly to people who express sympathies for Jim Crow, Vichy, Antonescu, Horthy, and so forth, even if they might in principle be sympathetic to ethnonationalist concerns in principle. Nor should they. I'm sympathetic to a lot of ethnic identity concerns, in Europe more so than America, but I think if you want to really build a red brown coalition you absolutely need to separate yourself from the evils of (some) ethnic nationalist regimes of the past, and make it clear why what you're standing for is not like what they stood for, why your context is different from theirs, and why you won't repeat their crimes. (FTR, I think this can be done, at least for 'decent' ethnic nationalists, it will just take some work, and I think the far left needs to do the same).

The regular commenter here, German Reader, said smething similar over on Rod Dreher's blog: people who worry about mass immigration in Europe discredit their whole cause when they assume we can simply re-enact the Reconquista and forcibly expel all the Jews to Israel and Muslims to North Africa.

Again, I say this as someone who hopes red-brown alliances, at least red-soft brown, can to some degree become a thing, and who really dislikes the tendency of some on the left to think that by calling something 'fascist' or 'racist' you can simply dismiss its intellectual or moral claims.

. The victory over Nazi Germany and the victory over American racism towards Black people really were great moral triumphs.

Since this triumph black people are more likely to be murdered, more likely to be in prison, more likely to be on drugs, more likely to grow up in a dysfunctional home, more likely to be victim of violent crime and more likely to be unemployed.

On the plus side, a talented tenth of blacks no longer have to live among other blacks and can walk into job they want by showing up.

Unlike whites and Latinos, Black Americans think their life situation has gotten better since the 1960s. Why don't you ask them? I am not presumptuous enough to disagree with them about which situation they prefer.

because, as is well-known to everybody even minimally informed, Assad’s opposition is incapable of governance

Islamic fundamentalists do a pretty good job of running Saudi Arabia and a so-so job of running Iran. The myth that secular leaders are better at running countries than religious fundamentalists is just another piece of retro leftism that the alt right have jumped on to for want of being able to come up with their own ideas.

Obviously, the best thing would simply be for some other country to take over and run Syria. Russia has local connections, so they could do it. Saudi Arabia would probably do pretty well too. The problem is we can't have imperialism any more, but that's not Trump's fault. It's not really anyone's fault, it's just the rules we inherited from people long dead who didn't really know what they were doing either.

Racially and religiously diverse countries with low human capital and excess unemployable males just shouldn't govern themselves. Period. But they do, and there we are.

Even if all the claims of an Assad chemical attack were true (which is far from proven, and to be honest, not even quite plausible)

There's nothing even mildly implausible about it. You don't even have to bring in HBD. Look at atrocities during the American civil war. What do you think they would have done if they had chemical weapons?

But none of this matters. Trump bombed an airbase; people who watch NASCAR thought this was cool; his wife gave him a blow job; nothing bad came of it, no-one cares except monomaniacs.

Islamic fundamentalists do a pretty good job of running Saudi Arabia and a so-so job of running Iran

Seems dubious to me, it’s quite likely imo Saudi-Arabia will blow up (maybe at some point in the 2020s) when they’re running out of their ill-deserved oil money and have to cut back welfare programmes.
As for Iran, who knows, the place might not have reached its full potential and do much better without the Islamic regime.

Iran has an average IQ of 84. It has the potential to be ... Mexico. It was doing better under the Shah because it was de facto being governed by whites (even so it wasn't doing that great.)

Lots of countries have oil, Saudi Arabia has done a good job with it. Compare with, say, Venezuela. You won't find Saudi Arabia inviting James Petras in to give them economic advice.

Anyway, the point isn't that Islamic regimes are better, just that they are no worse. The alt right seems to think that the most important thing in the world is that Syrian women can go to university and wear jeggings. I'm not sold.

Maybe it's unfair (and I have to admit, I've never myself taken the risk of being punched by violent lefties), but frankly, Richard Spencer comes across like a silly narcissist to me. He seems in love with the idea of his own importance...when in fact he's just got a crappy website and a Twitter account. Also all those dumb references to popular culture (e.g. there's now a picture from a James Bond movie on his Twitter account...yeah, because ironic references to trashy low-brow entertainment will save the white race, haha)...just silly imo, no comparison to the more successful nationalist politicians in Europe.
I think the whole alt-right phenomenon is massively overestimated tbh. You can see this in the reaction by Trump supporters to the Syria missile strikes...large majority in favour. Those people probably have never even heard of the alt-right and Spencer. So I think Spencer will probably just become a kind of David Duke-like bogeyman for US media, a role which he seems to like...don't see him ever becoming truly influential.

So I think Spencer will probably just become a kind of David Duke-like bogeyman for US media

because, as is well-known to everybody even minimally informed, Assad’s opposition is incapable of governance

Islamic fundamentalists do a pretty good job of running Saudi Arabia and a so-so job of running Iran. The myth that secular leaders are better at running countries than religious fundamentalists is just another piece of retro leftism that the alt right have jumped on to for want of being able to come up with their own ideas.

Obviously, the best thing would simply be for some other country to take over and run Syria. Russia has local connections, so they could do it. Saudi Arabia would probably do pretty well too. The problem is we can't have imperialism any more, but that's not Trump's fault. It's not really anyone's fault, it's just the rules we inherited from people long dead who didn't really know what they were doing either.

Racially and religiously diverse countries with low human capital and excess unemployable males just shouldn't govern themselves. Period. But they do, and there we are.

Even if all the claims of an Assad chemical attack were true (which is far from proven, and to be honest, not even quite plausible)

There's nothing even mildly implausible about it. You don't even have to bring in HBD. Look at atrocities during the American civil war. What do you think they would have done if they had chemical weapons?

But none of this matters. Trump bombed an airbase; people who watch NASCAR thought this was cool; his wife gave him a blow job; nothing bad came of it, no-one cares except monomaniacs.

There’s nothing even mildly implausible about it.

Apart from the fact that it’s inherently ridiculous to suppose that the Syrian government would even consider allowing even the possibility of a chemical weapons attack, given such an attack can never produce more than trivial tactical gains and carries the real risk of snatching strategic defeat from the very jaws of victory in almost the only way it is plausibly capable of happening now – Libya-style.

To overcome that degree of inherent strategic absurdity, you’d need a lot more than all the questionable allegations and supposed findings from partisan groups and governments that have been paraded so far.

because, as is well-known to everybody even minimally informed, Assad’s opposition is incapable of governance

Islamic fundamentalists do a pretty good job of running Saudi Arabia and a so-so job of running Iran. The myth that secular leaders are better at running countries than religious fundamentalists is just another piece of retro leftism that the alt right have jumped on to for want of being able to come up with their own ideas.

Obviously, the best thing would simply be for some other country to take over and run Syria. Russia has local connections, so they could do it. Saudi Arabia would probably do pretty well too. The problem is we can't have imperialism any more, but that's not Trump's fault. It's not really anyone's fault, it's just the rules we inherited from people long dead who didn't really know what they were doing either.

Racially and religiously diverse countries with low human capital and excess unemployable males just shouldn't govern themselves. Period. But they do, and there we are.

Even if all the claims of an Assad chemical attack were true (which is far from proven, and to be honest, not even quite plausible)

There's nothing even mildly implausible about it. You don't even have to bring in HBD. Look at atrocities during the American civil war. What do you think they would have done if they had chemical weapons?

But none of this matters. Trump bombed an airbase; people who watch NASCAR thought this was cool; his wife gave him a blow job; nothing bad came of it, no-one cares except monomaniacs.

Islamic fundamentalists do a pretty good job of running Saudi Arabia

Perhaps ISIS or Al-Qaeda could run Syria relatively effectively, but

1) they would cleanse it of all Christians and probably most of urban elites, which would make it probably less efficient than the hopelessly inefficient Assad regime has ever been

2) there are at least two very large (already named) and a few smaller Islamist factions, and many of them are prone to further fission

3) the Libyan example shows that such loosely coordinated rebel factions tend to turn on each other once the evil dictator was toppled

4) even if one rebel faction managed to win and end the civil war, a lot of the population would still dislike it because the Syrian government wouldn’t have as much money as the Saudi government does currently have (at current oil prices, for a few more years; then, we’ll see)

There’s nothing even mildly implausible about it.

First, it’s questionable if it really was sarin or not. The Syrians and Russians have offered to open up the airport in question to a serious investigation (traces of sarin could be detected long after it’s gone, so if it was true, they’d be taking a lot of risks here – of course, nobody was interested in the investigation), and the fact that the White Helmets were touching the victims with their bare hands also points that it could easily have been something other than sarin.

Second, such a bombing makes no sense at all. It was far from the front, basically a terror bombing with one bomb only. What did Assad (or his general) even try to accomplish here? This is the main point to me: it made no military sense at all. Bombing a besieged town would’ve made sense, perhaps even with one bomb. Bombing a far away town firmly in al-Qaeda hands made no sense whatsoever, except if the goal was to produce videos of suffering children.

And of course, having opened up the airport to investigation, the Russians and Syrians could’ve suffered if someone called their bluffs. Nobody did. Why?

Islamic fundamentalists do a pretty good job of running Saudi Arabia and a so-so job of running Iran

Seems dubious to me, it's quite likely imo Saudi-Arabia will blow up (maybe at some point in the 2020s) when they're running out of their ill-deserved oil money and have to cut back welfare programmes.
As for Iran, who knows, the place might not have reached its full potential and do much better without the Islamic regime.

As for Iran, who knows, the place might not have reached its full potential and do much better without the Islamic regime.

It’s a pity the shah wasn’t more competent. But Iran is more civilized than Syria, and the Sunni fundamentalists are worse.

Yes, I'm not the greatest fan of Iranian immigrants in the west (many of them are unpleasant leftists), but there's a long history of civilization in Persia, that to some degree is independent of Islamic identity. I do hope that one day they get rid of at least the more oppressive elements of the present system....though unfortunately it might well come to war between the US and Iran instead.
Agree, the Sunni fundamentalists are the worst option in every way...they'll eradicate all the minorities and present a permanent security threat to Europe if they get into power.

Islamic fundamentalists do a pretty good job of running Saudi Arabia and a so-so job of running Iran

Seems dubious to me, it's quite likely imo Saudi-Arabia will blow up (maybe at some point in the 2020s) when they're running out of their ill-deserved oil money and have to cut back welfare programmes.
As for Iran, who knows, the place might not have reached its full potential and do much better without the Islamic regime.

Iran has an average IQ of 84. It has the potential to be … Mexico. It was doing better under the Shah because it was de facto being governed by whites (even so it wasn’t doing that great.)

Lots of countries have oil, Saudi Arabia has done a good job with it. Compare with, say, Venezuela. You won’t find Saudi Arabia inviting James Petras in to give them economic advice.

Anyway, the point isn’t that Islamic regimes are better, just that they are no worse. The alt right seems to think that the most important thing in the world is that Syrian women can go to university and wear jeggings. I’m not sold.

I don't know about that, it's not like there wasn't a significant history of civilization in Persia. But then modern Maya are supposedly quite dumb despite the impressive achievements of their ancestors. Hard to tell.
In any case it's of course ultimately up to the Iranians themselves what kind of system they want to adopt.

You need to consider that in Syria the high-IQ groups were part of or at least supported the Assad government: weird religious sects (Alawites, the Druze), Christians, and urban Sunni elites. These will be mostly chased out or killed under any kind of Sunni fundamentalist regime.

The fact that even many of the dumb Sunni masses will also flee the paradise they created and thus swell the migrant populations already here in Europe will be a nice bonus.

But again, we've already assumed that one of the Sunni fundamentalist rebel groups will be able to destroy the rest and create some semblance of order. Unlikely. I'd bet on a Libya style continuing civil war.

As for Iran, who knows, the place might not have reached its full potential and do much better without the Islamic regime.

It's a pity the shah wasn't more competent. But Iran is more civilized than Syria, and the Sunni fundamentalists are worse.

Yes, I’m not the greatest fan of Iranian immigrants in the west (many of them are unpleasant leftists), but there’s a long history of civilization in Persia, that to some degree is independent of Islamic identity. I do hope that one day they get rid of at least the more oppressive elements of the present system….though unfortunately it might well come to war between the US and Iran instead.
Agree, the Sunni fundamentalists are the worst option in every way…they’ll eradicate all the minorities and present a permanent security threat to Europe if they get into power.

In any case, I don’t think Karlin was being sentimental about the victims of US military crimes of aggression.

No, he was making a casual allegation of racism = faggotry. 'Bombing brown people' is the most faggoty lefty meme there is. In all probability it originated in one of Soros' operations. All you need to do is type 'bomb brown people' into Google and it's like you've been teleported into Berkeley.

‘Bombing brown people’ is the most faggoty lefty meme there is.

“Bombing brown people” is in a sense an aspect of the strategy Hector St Clare suggests above, of seeking to bring leftists on board with non-interventionism by playing on their sympathies rather than confronting them.

Faggoty or not, it’s an effective political tactic. For every one bomb-happy interventionist hypocrite (I don’t believe you’d be as cynically relaxed if the boot were on the other foot and Americans were the target) like you who finds it annoying, there are ten leftists who are nodding along with it (maybe not as many in this particular forum, obviously). It directly attacks the “R2P” idiocy that most leftists knee-jerk along to when the establishment needs them on board for some murderous act of military aggression.

For every one bomb-happy interventionist hypocrite (I don’t believe you’d be as cynically relaxed if the boot were on the other foot and Americans were the target) like you who finds it annoying, there are ten leftists who are nodding along with it

Because they are faggots. Is there something that is complicated about this?

Iran has an average IQ of 84. It has the potential to be ... Mexico. It was doing better under the Shah because it was de facto being governed by whites (even so it wasn't doing that great.)

Lots of countries have oil, Saudi Arabia has done a good job with it. Compare with, say, Venezuela. You won't find Saudi Arabia inviting James Petras in to give them economic advice.

Anyway, the point isn't that Islamic regimes are better, just that they are no worse. The alt right seems to think that the most important thing in the world is that Syrian women can go to university and wear jeggings. I'm not sold.

Iran has an average IQ of 84.

I don’t know about that, it’s not like there wasn’t a significant history of civilization in Persia. But then modern Maya are supposedly quite dumb despite the impressive achievements of their ancestors. Hard to tell.
In any case it’s of course ultimately up to the Iranians themselves what kind of system they want to adopt.

Also, and I say this in a spirit of mostly friendly criticism, if you want to appeal to the left you really need to stop saying nice things about Richard Spencer, and at least tone down the anti-anti-racist stuff.

I don't think there's much point in trying to appease the "antiracist" sensibilities of mainstream lefties or conservatives. Ok, I can see how in the American context the hardcore alt-right comes across as very heartless and unfeeling; given the history of black-white relations in the US, there might still be a case for generosity towards slave-descended blacks. The situation in Western Europe is very different though. We're not dealing here with some long-established minority with historic grievances and nowhere else to go, but with immigrant communities of very recent origin who have benefited massively from European welfare states, and caused a disproportionate amount of trouble in return. There's also the whole issue how you're dealt with by mainstream society as a nationalist. Here in Germany it's basically open season on AfD politicians (who, despite a few dodgy characters, on the whole are definitely not Nazis, not even comparable to someone like Richard Spencer). They can expect not only to have their cars torched or their houses vandalized, but actually to be beaten up and threatened with death by Antifa activists. And there's deafening silence about this (which I interpret as tacit approval) by mainstream left-wingers and conservatives who instead constantly parade their "antiracist" credentials. I don't think there should be any attempt at dialogue or finding common ground under those conditions. You don't talk to people who want to destroy you.
Regarding Richard Spencer, I really don't get why the guy gets all that attention. It's not like he's a serious thinker or actually important, despite his bizarre delusions about his own personal grandeur.

I know you’re not American and so probably don’t ‘internalize’ the American social context (and I agree with you that from what I can tell the dynamics are very different in Europe). You’re correct that America is in a very different historical position here, and I personally find it super-annoying when people try to interpret European, Asian, Latin American or African politics through the lens of the American civil rights struggle. E.g. when people try to ask “Who are the Blacks in Malaysia? Who are the whites in Yugoslavia?”

Having said that, it’s not that there ‘might be’ a case for generosity towards US Black people: there definitely is a very strong one. If we’re concerned about the rights of ethnic groups to thrive in their ancestral land, America is at least as much the homeland of Black people as it is most white people. Most white Americans draw a large chunk of their ancestry from post-1845 and in many cases much more recent migration (from Ireland, Italy, Eastern Europe, Germany, Scandinavia, etc.): the ancestry of black Americans derives mostly from slaves who were brought here prior to 1808. Black Americans have a very strong case that they were treated horribly during the decades of segregation and even more during two centuries or so of slavery. I think anyone who’s sympathetic to ethnic nationalist causes in principle need to do a much better cause of regognizing the legitimate interests of Black Americans and their legitimate hostility to the idea that America isn’t their country. (N.B. there’s nothing in Black American culture that should militate inherently against the idea of ethnic nationalism. Malcolm X, famously, believed in separate states for separate ethnic groups. Modern day Black Americans have embraced liberalism largely because the Republican Party embraced causes and historical trends that Black Americans view with extreme suspicion, and with good reason. Trump’s tone-deaf language in speaking to African-Americans, and his embrace of tough criminal justice policies and willingness to cut the welfare state, have only cemented that suspicion).

I fully agree that Europe is in a very different position here- there are no “African-Americans of Europe”. As you point out, the European ethnic nationalists represent the indigenous populations here, and most of the ethnic minority populations are of very recent origin, came over voluntarily, and have in many cases caused quite a bit of trouble. That having been said, European ethnic nationalists have their own historical baggage that they need to divest themselves of. Cf. M. Jalkh’s comment’s about the Nazi death camps, the Greater Romania Party’s attempt to appeal fondly to the memory of both Antonescu and Ceaucescu, the inexplicable fondness of Jobbik and the Slovak National Party for the interwar fascist states, etc.. I would recommend that if you want to win people over, you kind of have to not do those things.

As for this:

“I don’t think there should be any attempt at dialogue or finding common ground under those conditions. You don’t talk to people who want to destroy you.”

Well, A) this is exactly what the ‘antifa’ liberals say, and B) this is not going to be a successful strategy when you’re a small minority of the population. Ethnic nationalists can win elections in eastern Europe, maybe, but in much of western Europe they’re a minority of the population that’s viewed as toxic by everyone else. You want that to change, and in many cases I’m sympathetic to you, but if you want to do that then yes, you kind of need to talk to people who want to destroy you and convince them not to destroy you, and that you’re not as bad as they think. The Danish ethnic nationalists have done this successfully. Thus far the French and German ones haven’t, and I’m not optimistic they will be able to.

If we’re concerned about the rights of ethnic groups to thrive in their ancestral land, America is at least as much the homeland of Black people as it is most white people.

Of course, didn't want to dispute that. I personally don't really take a stance on relations between whites and blacks in the US, it's not my problem, and I can see where you're coming from...the situation of slave-descended blacks in the US still seems to be pretty depressing on the whole. From the outside, it also seems pretty clear that the US hasn't really found a solution to its traditional race issue...there seems to be intense racial hostility on both sides, and there's a hugely dysfunctional black underclass (and the only solution for that anybody seems to have come up with is locking up lots of black men).
I do however very much object to the attitude taken by many US liberals that you've described yourself above, with their idea that the American experience is somehow universally relevant. It isn't. Even race relations between whites in England and black immigrants from the Caribbean are very different from the situation in the US. Turks in Germany may face at least some discrimination, and there have been cases of racist murders by Neonazis, but again, their position isn't really comparable to the history of blacks in the US.

That having been said, European ethnic nationalists have their own historical baggage that they need to divest themselves of.

That's true, and I certainly agree, linking yourself to the traditions of genuinely fascist movements shouldn't be done, as shouldn't stoking of revanchism about long-lost territories and the like (e.g. Hungary and the treaty of Trianon, Germany and its lost Eastern territories), also obviously nothing like racial discrimination against citizens and legal residents. However I agree with Randal...at some point you're inevitably going to come into conflict with the prevailing establishment view. If you can't come out in the open and say "I think Islam is a regressive ideology that doesn't add anything positive to our society and I don't want to see its influence increased" or "I don't think we should open up Europe to millions of African immigrants", then your nationalist movement is pointless. On these issues there just can't be any accomodation.

You want that to change, and in many cases I’m sympathetic to you, but if you want to do that then yes, you kind of need to talk to people who want to destroy you and convince them not to destroy you, and that you’re not as bad as they think.

No, you need to talk to people who have doubts, who aren't racist on a personal level and may even have well-assimilated immigrant friends, but who fear Islam and don't want to become a minority in their own country. And there are many people like that. It's a fool's errand by contrast to talk to people who are committed antiracist witchhunters, these people will always be enemies.

I think anyone who’s sympathetic to ethnic nationalist causes in principle need to do a much better cause of regognizing the legitimate interests of Black Americans and their legitimate hostility to the idea that America isn’t their country.

The Blacks are developing their own ethnonationalism - it's called hotep nationalism.

http://hotepnation.com/

They do have an annoying "we wuz kangz" svidomist-like element but overall they're okay and I think I support them.

They are infinitely more sympathetic than the likes of Ta-Nahesi Coates, anyway.

. The victory over Nazi Germany and the victory over American racism towards Black people really were great moral triumphs.

Since this triumph black people are more likely to be murdered, more likely to be in prison, more likely to be on drugs, more likely to grow up in a dysfunctional home, more likely to be victim of violent crime and more likely to be unemployed.

On the plus side, a talented tenth of blacks no longer have to live among other blacks and can walk into job they want by showing up.

Go team!

Unlike whites and Latinos, Black Americans think their life situation has gotten better since the 1960s. Why don’t you ask them? I am not presumptuous enough to disagree with them about which situation they prefer.

Unlike whites and Latinos, Black Americans think their life situation has gotten better since the 1960s.

Assuming this is even true, most blacks have a fantasy view of what their peoples' past was like. Oprah Winfrey said that 'millions' of blacks had been lynched. The average black probably imagines that in 1960 he could be randomly murdered by klansmen if he tried to cross the street.

Re-Red/Brown alliance. That is all true. However, the fact that it hasn't worked even in Eastern Europe - there are very real differences between the KPRF and LDPR - just goes to further show how hopeless the project is.

Anyhow, a necessary clarification - I myself am not interested in or invested into any ideological project, including a Red/Brown alliance. I am primarily interested in what works. That is ambiguous, so let me clarify further: I am interested in the preservation of civilization and its betterment.

Things such as mass Third World immigration, dysgenics, and various existential risks imperil civilization.

Socialism per se doesn't imperil civilization, though it seems pretty to clear to me taht free markets have tended to be more conductive to human flourishing. That said, average IQs are clearly more important, so I would be very willing to forego considerable economic freedoms if leftists offered a saner biopolitics (I do, after all, unreservedly support Le Pen over Macron). In practice, however, it is the European leftists who also tend to be the craziest open borders lunatics, so in practice it's not a tradeoff that I personally even have to worry about.

Re-Richard Spencer. As per the above, I'm not on any sort of ideological crusade here. I am not going to say "nice" or "bad" things about people based on how well their ideas jive with a political program that I do not even share.

“That said, average IQs are clearly more important, so I would be very willing to forego considerable economic freedoms if leftists offered a saner biopolitics (I do, after all, unreservedly support Le Pen over Macron).”

Funny note, since you said that. I know another guy (on the Left, but also a HBD believer) who said that in his view it would have better for Malaysia if the Communist rebels had won. As he puts it, “central planning is usually a bad idea, but the economic loss you would take from central planning is probably less than the economic gain from being governed by ethnic Chinese instead of ethnic Malays.”

Unlike whites and Latinos, Black Americans think their life situation has gotten better since the 1960s. Why don't you ask them? I am not presumptuous enough to disagree with them about which situation they prefer.

Unlike whites and Latinos, Black Americans think their life situation has gotten better since the 1960s.

Assuming this is even true, most blacks have a fantasy view of what their peoples’ past was like. Oprah Winfrey said that ‘millions’ of blacks had been lynched. The average black probably imagines that in 1960 he could be randomly murdered by klansmen if he tried to cross the street.

The average black probably imagines that in 1960 he could be randomly murdered by klansmen if he tried to cross the street

Well, actually in 1960 the average black could have been murdered for inappropriate behavior towards a white person on the street, in the South, anyway. And in a few instances, no behavior at all was required.

I don't know about that, it's not like there wasn't a significant history of civilization in Persia. But then modern Maya are supposedly quite dumb despite the impressive achievements of their ancestors. Hard to tell.
In any case it's of course ultimately up to the Iranians themselves what kind of system they want to adopt.

Germans/Nordics were once blond chimps too- all of Europe probably improved their IQ to world class levels through intense selection with declines in formerly more civilized areas

I’ve been vaccilating between optimism and pessimism. Obviously, Le Pen’s result – 34% of the vote – was unprecedentedly good

My default position as far as politics is concerned is pessimism, which I claim is justified by having watched the worst aspects of the political left (socially radical and politically illiberal, treasonously anti-patriotic, and murderously interventionist) in unholy alliance with the worst aspects of the globalist right (treasonously subservient to Washington and to international big business and murderously interventionist) triumph everywhere in the US sphere over the course of my lifetime.

I’ve said before that I think France might well come down to a race between the FN taking power and its “moderating” itself into just another tool for the globalist establishment. By the time it takes office, France might need to replace it with a new honest opposition, anyway.

But I think it makes more sense to just take the significant increase in FN vote on its face and accept it as another step forwards, and feel good about the result. 34% for the FN in 2017 would have seemed like a fantasy scenario a few years ago before Trump and Brexit raised the bar for “success” (unreasonably, imo). There’s a danger in overanalysing the detailed breakdowns of support. A few years back we were being told that UKIP could never win a referendum because their support was overwhelmingly concentrated amongst older people (we were told that – I’m not saying it was necessarily true) and would die out . You can’t easily draw a line from what people think at 18 to what they will think when they are 30, imo.

And the bottom line is that the problems that drive increased support for parties of national survival, including in France, aren’t going anywhere, and are only going to get worse, especially under the likes of Macron.

I know you're not American and so probably don't 'internalize' the American social context (and I agree with you that from what I can tell the dynamics are very different in Europe). You're correct that America is in a very different historical position here, and I personally find it super-annoying when people try to interpret European, Asian, Latin American or African politics through the lens of the American civil rights struggle. E.g. when people try to ask "Who are the Blacks in Malaysia? Who are the whites in Yugoslavia?"

Having said that, it's not that there 'might be' a case for generosity towards US Black people: there definitely is a very strong one. If we're concerned about the rights of ethnic groups to thrive in their ancestral land, America is at least as much the homeland of Black people as it is most white people. Most white Americans draw a large chunk of their ancestry from post-1845 and in many cases much more recent migration (from Ireland, Italy, Eastern Europe, Germany, Scandinavia, etc.): the ancestry of black Americans derives mostly from slaves who were brought here prior to 1808. Black Americans have a very strong case that they were treated horribly during the decades of segregation and even more during two centuries or so of slavery. I think anyone who's sympathetic to ethnic nationalist causes in principle need to do a much better cause of regognizing the legitimate interests of Black Americans and their legitimate hostility to the idea that America isn't their country. (N.B. there's nothing in Black American culture that should militate inherently against the idea of ethnic nationalism. Malcolm X, famously, believed in separate states for separate ethnic groups. Modern day Black Americans have embraced liberalism largely because the Republican Party embraced causes and historical trends that Black Americans view with extreme suspicion, and with good reason. Trump's tone-deaf language in speaking to African-Americans, and his embrace of tough criminal justice policies and willingness to cut the welfare state, have only cemented that suspicion).

I fully agree that Europe is in a very different position here- there are no "African-Americans of Europe". As you point out, the European ethnic nationalists represent the indigenous populations here, and most of the ethnic minority populations are of very recent origin, came over voluntarily, and have in many cases caused quite a bit of trouble. That having been said, European ethnic nationalists have their own historical baggage that they need to divest themselves of. Cf. M. Jalkh's comment's about the Nazi death camps, the Greater Romania Party's attempt to appeal fondly to the memory of both Antonescu and Ceaucescu, the inexplicable fondness of Jobbik and the Slovak National Party for the interwar fascist states, etc.. I would recommend that if you want to win people over, you kind of have to not do those things.

As for this:

"I don’t think there should be any attempt at dialogue or finding common ground under those conditions. You don’t talk to people who want to destroy you."

Well, A) this is exactly what the 'antifa' liberals say, and B) this is not going to be a successful strategy when you're a small minority of the population. Ethnic nationalists can win elections in eastern Europe, maybe, but in much of western Europe they're a minority of the population that's viewed as toxic by everyone else. You want that to change, and in many cases I'm sympathetic to you, but if you want to do that then yes, you kind of need to talk to people who want to destroy you and convince them not to destroy you, and that you're not as bad as they think. The Danish ethnic nationalists have done this successfully. Thus far the French and German ones haven't, and I'm not optimistic they will be able to.

If we’re concerned about the rights of ethnic groups to thrive in their ancestral land, America is at least as much the homeland of Black people as it is most white people.

Of course, didn’t want to dispute that. I personally don’t really take a stance on relations between whites and blacks in the US, it’s not my problem, and I can see where you’re coming from…the situation of slave-descended blacks in the US still seems to be pretty depressing on the whole. From the outside, it also seems pretty clear that the US hasn’t really found a solution to its traditional race issue…there seems to be intense racial hostility on both sides, and there’s a hugely dysfunctional black underclass (and the only solution for that anybody seems to have come up with is locking up lots of black men).
I do however very much object to the attitude taken by many US liberals that you’ve described yourself above, with their idea that the American experience is somehow universally relevant. It isn’t. Even race relations between whites in England and black immigrants from the Caribbean are very different from the situation in the US. Turks in Germany may face at least some discrimination, and there have been cases of racist murders by Neonazis, but again, their position isn’t really comparable to the history of blacks in the US.

That having been said, European ethnic nationalists have their own historical baggage that they need to divest themselves of.

That’s true, and I certainly agree, linking yourself to the traditions of genuinely fascist movements shouldn’t be done, as shouldn’t stoking of revanchism about long-lost territories and the like (e.g. Hungary and the treaty of Trianon, Germany and its lost Eastern territories), also obviously nothing like racial discrimination against citizens and legal residents. However I agree with Randal…at some point you’re inevitably going to come into conflict with the prevailing establishment view. If you can’t come out in the open and say “I think Islam is a regressive ideology that doesn’t add anything positive to our society and I don’t want to see its influence increased” or “I don’t think we should open up Europe to millions of African immigrants”, then your nationalist movement is pointless. On these issues there just can’t be any accomodation.

You want that to change, and in many cases I’m sympathetic to you, but if you want to do that then yes, you kind of need to talk to people who want to destroy you and convince them not to destroy you, and that you’re not as bad as they think.

No, you need to talk to people who have doubts, who aren’t racist on a personal level and may even have well-assimilated immigrant friends, but who fear Islam and don’t want to become a minority in their own country. And there are many people like that. It’s a fool’s errand by contrast to talk to people who are committed antiracist witchhunters, these people will always be enemies.

"Bombing brown people" is in a sense an aspect of the strategy Hector St Clare suggests above, of seeking to bring leftists on board with non-interventionism by playing on their sympathies rather than confronting them.

Faggoty or not, it's an effective political tactic. For every one bomb-happy interventionist hypocrite (I don't believe you'd be as cynically relaxed if the boot were on the other foot and Americans were the target) like you who finds it annoying, there are ten leftists who are nodding along with it (maybe not as many in this particular forum, obviously). It directly attacks the "R2P" idiocy that most leftists knee-jerk along to when the establishment needs them on board for some murderous act of military aggression.

Faggoty or not, it’s an effective political tactic.

It’s an effective political tactic with faggots.

For every one bomb-happy interventionist hypocrite (I don’t believe you’d be as cynically relaxed if the boot were on the other foot and Americans were the target) like you who finds it annoying, there are ten leftists who are nodding along with it

Because they are faggots. Is there something that is complicated about this?

Well, if the Trump experience is anything to go by, why not bomb some brown people

It's amazing how this issue brings out the inner faggot in people. Trump bombed an airbase because one of Assad's goons got a hard on and went too far. Assad will be a bit more on top of things for a year to stop it happening again. No WW3, no quagmire, no nothing. Get over it.

We’re not “faggots” for demanding some actual EVIDENCE to implicate the Syrian government in the alleged gas/chemical attack.

Neither you nor we have any idea whether the thus-far unjustified missile strike on the Syrian base is a harbinger of much bigger, costlier, deadlier unnecessary intervention by the US government in that country. Let’s hope not.

1) they would cleanse it of all Christians and probably most of urban elites, which would make it probably less efficient than the hopelessly inefficient Assad regime has ever been

2) there are at least two very large (already named) and a few smaller Islamist factions, and many of them are prone to further fission

3) the Libyan example shows that such loosely coordinated rebel factions tend to turn on each other once the evil dictator was toppled

4) even if one rebel faction managed to win and end the civil war, a lot of the population would still dislike it because the Syrian government wouldn't have as much money as the Saudi government does currently have (at current oil prices, for a few more years; then, we'll see)

There’s nothing even mildly implausible about it.

First, it's questionable if it really was sarin or not. The Syrians and Russians have offered to open up the airport in question to a serious investigation (traces of sarin could be detected long after it's gone, so if it was true, they'd be taking a lot of risks here - of course, nobody was interested in the investigation), and the fact that the White Helmets were touching the victims with their bare hands also points that it could easily have been something other than sarin.

Second, such a bombing makes no sense at all. It was far from the front, basically a terror bombing with one bomb only. What did Assad (or his general) even try to accomplish here? This is the main point to me: it made no military sense at all. Bombing a besieged town would've made sense, perhaps even with one bomb. Bombing a far away town firmly in al-Qaeda hands made no sense whatsoever, except if the goal was to produce videos of suffering children.

And of course, having opened up the airport to investigation, the Russians and Syrians could've suffered if someone called their bluffs. Nobody did. Why?

What did Assad (or his general) even try to accomplish here?

Are we still on planet earth here? Whichever general made the order was trying to kill people he didn’t like because its fun. Maybe he had some third cousin who was hacked to death by Al Nusra.

Yeah, they're just plain evil and thats why they use their gas to kill a few dozen kids for the lulz instead of to soften up a strongly fortified position to obtain a breakthrough of the line. Evil dictators always lose wars because of this kind of misallocation of assets.

. The victory over Nazi Germany and the victory over American racism towards Black people really were great moral triumphs.

Since this triumph black people are more likely to be murdered, more likely to be in prison, more likely to be on drugs, more likely to grow up in a dysfunctional home, more likely to be victim of violent crime and more likely to be unemployed.

On the plus side, a talented tenth of blacks no longer have to live among other blacks and can walk into job they want by showing up.

I’ve been vaccilating between optimism and pessimism. Obviously, Le Pen’s result – 34% of the vote – was unprecedentedly good

My default position as far as politics is concerned is pessimism, which I claim is justified by having watched the worst aspects of the political left (socially radical and politically illiberal, treasonously anti-patriotic, and murderously interventionist) in unholy alliance with the worst aspects of the globalist right (treasonously subservient to Washington and to international big business and murderously interventionist) triumph everywhere in the US sphere over the course of my lifetime.

I've said before that I think France might well come down to a race between the FN taking power and its "moderating" itself into just another tool for the globalist establishment. By the time it takes office, France might need to replace it with a new honest opposition, anyway.

But I think it makes more sense to just take the significant increase in FN vote on its face and accept it as another step forwards, and feel good about the result. 34% for the FN in 2017 would have seemed like a fantasy scenario a few years ago before Trump and Brexit raised the bar for "success" (unreasonably, imo). There's a danger in overanalysing the detailed breakdowns of support. A few years back we were being told that UKIP could never win a referendum because their support was overwhelmingly concentrated amongst older people (we were told that - I'm not saying it was necessarily true) and would die out . You can't easily draw a line from what people think at 18 to what they will think when they are 30, imo.

And the bottom line is that the problems that drive increased support for parties of national survival, including in France, aren't going anywhere, and are only going to get worse, especially under the likes of Macron.

A few years back we were being told that UKIP could never win a referendum

UKIP did not ‘win a referendum’ and UKIP are finished. Black pills don’t come much blacker than Britain.

UKIP are in exactly the kind of turmoil you'd expect from a party that was created to achieve a concrete goal and suddenly (rather unexpectedly, if truth be told) achieved that goal.

It has to reorganise and find new goals. Whether it will do so successfully remains to be seen. If it reorganises itself as a successful advocate of the broader agenda of modern parties of national survival (halting immigration, restoring national sovereignty in the economic, political and military spheres) then it will do fine. If it does not, it will probably fade away and be replaced by someone else willing to represent those political trends.

Regardless, it's way too early yet to judge how it will go, only a few months after the Brexit triumph.

This really shouldn't come as a surprise, mlp was always going to get under 40%. The real blackpill was the sabotaging of Fillon in favour of this Macron weasel. I think the issue with "coming apart" is that in some sense, it hasn't really happened. The actual elite is a very small proportion of the population. The most educated decile of the french population tink they're beneficiaries of globilisation, but, without inherited wealth, theyre worse off than many blue collar workers were a generation ago. No extortionate college fees though, so plenty of grist for the mill. Comparentrast this with Turkey, where you have an arrogant urban bourgeoisie who are too small in number to stop the Turkish deplorables. The death penalty referendum over there should provide some entertaining triggerings of eurolibs.

The real blackpill was the sabotaging of Fillon in favour of this Macron weasel.

Incidentally, anyone know how the corruption investigation against Fillon is going?

I don't know about that, it's not like there wasn't a significant history of civilization in Persia. But then modern Maya are supposedly quite dumb despite the impressive achievements of their ancestors. Hard to tell.
In any case it's of course ultimately up to the Iranians themselves what kind of system they want to adopt.

That's my impression also. It seems similar to India in that respect, with significant very-smart and very-stupid fractions. The country is also less than half Persian, with large nomadic/primitive minorities like Lurs, Baluchis, Kurds, Turkmen and others.

American culture and just their general behavior is very different from the UK, or Australia. Friends of mine have mentioned that in America, you are considered as 'American' once you have a passport; in Australia people are still much more likely to press 'where are you [i]originally[/i] from?'This attitude is changing fast though. I was out recently and asked someone obviously of African descent what country he was from, and several people around interpreted this simple question as 'racist', 'he's Australian!' etc.

Iran has an average IQ of 84. It has the potential to be ... Mexico. It was doing better under the Shah because it was de facto being governed by whites (even so it wasn't doing that great.)

Lots of countries have oil, Saudi Arabia has done a good job with it. Compare with, say, Venezuela. You won't find Saudi Arabia inviting James Petras in to give them economic advice.

Anyway, the point isn't that Islamic regimes are better, just that they are no worse. The alt right seems to think that the most important thing in the world is that Syrian women can go to university and wear jeggings. I'm not sold.

The alt right seems to think that the most important thing in the world is that Syrian women can go to university and wear jeggings.

I don’t claim to speak for the Alt Right, but my impression is that they couldn’t give a toss (so long as they remain in their own countries).

(Though personally, as a proponent of civilization, I personally support both those things).

In any case, I don’t think Karlin was being sentimental about the victims of US military crimes of aggression.

No, he was making a casual allegation of racism = faggotry. 'Bombing brown people' is the most faggoty lefty meme there is. In all probability it originated in one of Soros' operations. All you need to do is type 'bomb brown people' into Google and it's like you've been teleported into Berkeley.

‘Bombing brown people’ is the most faggoty lefty meme there is.

Even a broken clock is…

Anyhow, invade/invite are joined at the hip. Since European peoples no longer have the ruthless will (or the demographics) to just invade.

Concerning the red-brown alliance, what about Robert Fico in Slovakia. I believe he is from the political left but helped protect Slovakia from the migrant invasion in 2015. Also, some elements in Austria’s Social Democrats are in favor of working with the Freedom Party on the national level after elections next October. Would love to see such a coalition take power if in fact it led to less immigration and it would have the nice by-product of driving hip and trendy multi-cultural favoring Greens and others crazy.

Yes, I really like Robert Fico. He is, yes, a social democrat who has decided to embrace culturally conservative causes (opposed to gay marriage, strongly opposed to mass migration especially of Muslims, for a tougher line towards the Roma) and is less pro-western / more pro-Russia than social democrats tend to be. And like trump he loves to troll the media whom he calls "lying prostitutes". As I noted above, Slovakia is one of those places, like the rest of eastern Europe, where leftism anticorrelates with liberalism, so it's the first place you would expect a red-brown coalition to emerge. I might be visiting Europe later this year and if possible I'd like to visit Slovakia.

Fico is probably my favourite European leader after Lukashenko in Belarus, so I was pleased to see they recently had a productive meeting where they agreed to try to intensify trade with each other. Fico in particular said he was looking forward to more trade with the "Eurasian Union" countries in future.

As for the FPO, in spite of the antipathy they arouse from some elements of the media and the political establishment, they appear to have been able to cooperate with social democrats in the past. They and the Social Democrats are currently vying for first place in Austrian opinion polls. President Van der Bellen has gone on record saying he'd refuse to recognize a FPO chancellor, so it may not happen any time soon, but I suspect it will happen eventually.

The FPO in Austria and the Danish People's Party are two examples of ethnonationalist parties in Western Europe that have overcome the 'toxic' label at least enough to participate in coalition governments and influence the agenda.

I know you're not American and so probably don't 'internalize' the American social context (and I agree with you that from what I can tell the dynamics are very different in Europe). You're correct that America is in a very different historical position here, and I personally find it super-annoying when people try to interpret European, Asian, Latin American or African politics through the lens of the American civil rights struggle. E.g. when people try to ask "Who are the Blacks in Malaysia? Who are the whites in Yugoslavia?"

Having said that, it's not that there 'might be' a case for generosity towards US Black people: there definitely is a very strong one. If we're concerned about the rights of ethnic groups to thrive in their ancestral land, America is at least as much the homeland of Black people as it is most white people. Most white Americans draw a large chunk of their ancestry from post-1845 and in many cases much more recent migration (from Ireland, Italy, Eastern Europe, Germany, Scandinavia, etc.): the ancestry of black Americans derives mostly from slaves who were brought here prior to 1808. Black Americans have a very strong case that they were treated horribly during the decades of segregation and even more during two centuries or so of slavery. I think anyone who's sympathetic to ethnic nationalist causes in principle need to do a much better cause of regognizing the legitimate interests of Black Americans and their legitimate hostility to the idea that America isn't their country. (N.B. there's nothing in Black American culture that should militate inherently against the idea of ethnic nationalism. Malcolm X, famously, believed in separate states for separate ethnic groups. Modern day Black Americans have embraced liberalism largely because the Republican Party embraced causes and historical trends that Black Americans view with extreme suspicion, and with good reason. Trump's tone-deaf language in speaking to African-Americans, and his embrace of tough criminal justice policies and willingness to cut the welfare state, have only cemented that suspicion).

I fully agree that Europe is in a very different position here- there are no "African-Americans of Europe". As you point out, the European ethnic nationalists represent the indigenous populations here, and most of the ethnic minority populations are of very recent origin, came over voluntarily, and have in many cases caused quite a bit of trouble. That having been said, European ethnic nationalists have their own historical baggage that they need to divest themselves of. Cf. M. Jalkh's comment's about the Nazi death camps, the Greater Romania Party's attempt to appeal fondly to the memory of both Antonescu and Ceaucescu, the inexplicable fondness of Jobbik and the Slovak National Party for the interwar fascist states, etc.. I would recommend that if you want to win people over, you kind of have to not do those things.

As for this:

"I don’t think there should be any attempt at dialogue or finding common ground under those conditions. You don’t talk to people who want to destroy you."

Well, A) this is exactly what the 'antifa' liberals say, and B) this is not going to be a successful strategy when you're a small minority of the population. Ethnic nationalists can win elections in eastern Europe, maybe, but in much of western Europe they're a minority of the population that's viewed as toxic by everyone else. You want that to change, and in many cases I'm sympathetic to you, but if you want to do that then yes, you kind of need to talk to people who want to destroy you and convince them not to destroy you, and that you're not as bad as they think. The Danish ethnic nationalists have done this successfully. Thus far the French and German ones haven't, and I'm not optimistic they will be able to.

I think anyone who’s sympathetic to ethnic nationalist causes in principle need to do a much better cause of regognizing the legitimate interests of Black Americans and their legitimate hostility to the idea that America isn’t their country.

The Blacks are developing their own ethnonationalism – it’s called hotep nationalism.

Umm, do you really think this "hotep" nationalism (is that another one of those silly claims that ancient Egypt was a "black" civilization?) has any chance of taking off? Seems like just another fringe movement to me, like the Nation of Islam or similar nonsense. What's it about America that it produces all those cult-like ethnonationalist movements that are so transparently silly? Similar with white nationalist movements...it's all so obviously fake and artificial. Is is because everyone in the US (apart maybe from some Appalachian whites who live in the same areas where their ancestors have been for centuries) is so deracinated?

All ethnic nationalism has elements of svidomism when you choose to deconstruct it, but why would you? Myths serve an important social purpose (in this case, the purpose of preserving the variety and distinctness of human genetic and cultural diversity).

I don't follow Indian politics in much of any detail, but in my idle moments I flirt with my own brand of 'ethnic' nationalism: I kind of wish the Southern Indian nationalists had been able to break away in the 1950s, as many of them hoped for, and form their own Dravida Nadu nation-state. Southern India is generally more educated / less patriarchal than the north, so of course they have lower fertility and have been losing demographic weight relative to the north ever since independence. That mythology of course has svidomist elements of its own, as do we all. (American patriotism is svidomist to the max, of course).

A few years back we were being told that UKIP could never win a referendum

UKIP did not 'win a referendum' and UKIP are finished. Black pills don't come much blacker than Britain.

UKIP did not ‘win a referendum’

Yes, they did.

and UKIP are finished

UKIP are in exactly the kind of turmoil you’d expect from a party that was created to achieve a concrete goal and suddenly (rather unexpectedly, if truth be told) achieved that goal.

It has to reorganise and find new goals. Whether it will do so successfully remains to be seen. If it reorganises itself as a successful advocate of the broader agenda of modern parties of national survival (halting immigration, restoring national sovereignty in the economic, political and military spheres) then it will do fine. If it does not, it will probably fade away and be replaced by someone else willing to represent those political trends.

Regardless, it’s way too early yet to judge how it will go, only a few months after the Brexit triumph.

UKIP are in exactly the kind of turmoil you’d expect from a party that was created to achieve a concrete goal and suddenly (rather unexpectedly, if truth be told) achieved that goal.

Not really. After the referendum UKIP were polling around 16%. What happened is that
(i) Nuttall flunked a winnable by-election by falsely claiming to have been at Hillsborough.
(ii) The party responded by launching a bizarre campaign to get rid of their only MP (who, I agree is a bit of a knob, though good on monetary issues).

But that's really an epiphenomenon of a broader issue, which is that UKIP was never more than a collection of plonkers held together with sticky tape by Farage. The reason for this is simple. Any MP in a mainstream party who has been in parliament for a decade can simply walk into a position as 'strategic adviser' or 'consultant' at hundreds of companies. Nuttall will be lucky to get a job in a chip shop (that is unless it's a chip shop whose business model involved being attacked by Antifa). Thus intelligent, ambitious people don't join UKIP. I've tried to encourage at least half a dozen people to join UKIP and stand as MPs, but they are not interested. The same goes everywhere. Who is in Wilders' party except Wilders? Why do all the famous people in the FN have the same surname?

These are the basic structural features that maintain the liberal democratic system.

On the subject of Red-Brown alliances, there's this to consider. My friend is a political statistician and he says basically, "in western Europe and the US, economic leftism is positively correlated with liberalism, in former Communist countries it's anticorrelated with liberalism." E.g. as he puts it, in eastern Europe you'll find people who say "we should nationalize banks and also crack down on the Gypsies!" and other people who say "we should legalize gay marriage and privatize health services!" Whereas in the US or presumably, France, such a constellation of views would be much rarer. (Well, libertarians exist, but economic leftist / culturally conservative types are much less common).

If there is any hope of a red-brown alliance (that is to say, an alliance broadly between communists and ethnonationalists) it's going to have to focus on eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and China, or at least start there. Not in countries like America or France.

Also, and I say this in a spirit of mostly friendly criticism, if you want to appeal to the left you really need to stop saying nice things about Richard Spencer, and at least tone down the anti-anti-racist stuff. And more broadly, eastern Europeans of the "red-brown" stripe need to make much more effort to distinguish themselves from interwar fascism than they have done up to this point. The victory over Nazi Germany and the victory over American racism towards Black people really were great moral triumphs. And in large part they were triumphs for the Left in particular. People who look back fondly on the communist days in eastern Europe and on the Great Society in America / its equvalents in western Europe are not going to take kindly to people who express sympathies for Jim Crow, Vichy, Antonescu, Horthy, and so forth, even if they might in principle be sympathetic to ethnonationalist concerns in principle. Nor should they. I'm sympathetic to a lot of ethnic identity concerns, in Europe more so than America, but I think if you want to really build a red brown coalition you absolutely need to separate yourself from the evils of (some) ethnic nationalist regimes of the past, and make it clear why what you're standing for is not like what they stood for, why your context is different from theirs, and why you won't repeat their crimes. (FTR, I think this can be done, at least for 'decent' ethnic nationalists, it will just take some work, and I think the far left needs to do the same).

The regular commenter here, German Reader, said smething similar over on Rod Dreher's blog: people who worry about mass immigration in Europe discredit their whole cause when they assume we can simply re-enact the Reconquista and forcibly expel all the Jews to Israel and Muslims to North Africa.

Again, I say this as someone who hopes red-brown alliances, at least red-soft brown, can to some degree become a thing, and who really dislikes the tendency of some on the left to think that by calling something 'fascist' or 'racist' you can simply dismiss its intellectual or moral claims.

“On the subject of Red-Brown alliances, there’s this to consider. ”

Why consider it at this point?

Looking at these polls, it appears neither Melanchon’s nor Fillon’s supporters want anything to do with the FN.

Maybe the FN needs to come to think of themselves as “The True French.”

France appears to be a lost cause. Let the rest of them have as much Islam as they wish. The FN is concentrated in certain areas, make those strongholds. Then engage in a cynical program of shamelessly wresting every last drop from the government teat, all while engaged in massive tax evasion on a personal level.

Make those stronghold areas. Given France’s economic issues (and most of the other nations in the EU), I don’t think the center is going to hold very much longer.

Maybe the Reconquista needs to be in France this time. There are a number of countries in the world where different groups exist in various states of uneasy peace. Well for a time.

Would be better to save France, but I guess that’s not possible with anyone who wouldn’t vote for Le Pen in this election. My god, Muslims kill people with axes in train stations, engage in other acts of terrorism, rape, … all while doing nothing productive while sucking on the teats of the welfare state.

If that’s not enough to convince anyone, it can’t be done, or isn’t worth anyone’s time.

Maybe in twenty or thirty years Russia or China might provide support for an attempt to reclaim Paris. I don’t know what happens to that place if the French welfare state breaks down. It may not be worth taking back honestly. All the churches will have been burned. Anything valuable will have been extracted and sold. All the works of art will have been looted, and sold to anyone interested across the world. The universities will converted to chickenshit Madrassas, and all the books in the libraries will be burned (except the ones they can sell).

Also for lots of other reasons (because the working class is a natural constituency of ethno-tribal politics, because cultural and economic collectivism plausibly go together, because diversity undermines the welfare state, because of a shared hostility to global capitalism and US imperialism, because both cultural change and neoliberal economics harm the working class, because there is no obvious connexion between tolerance of outsiders and one's views on economics, because all actually existing socialist states had closed borders, etc..) But in this case it's significant because Anatoly brought it up.

Concerning the red-brown alliance, what about Robert Fico in Slovakia. I believe he is from the political left but helped protect Slovakia from the migrant invasion in 2015. Also, some elements in Austria's Social Democrats are in favor of working with the Freedom Party on the national level after elections next October. Would love to see such a coalition take power if in fact it led to less immigration and it would have the nice by-product of driving hip and trendy multi-cultural favoring Greens and others crazy.

Yes, I really like Robert Fico. He is, yes, a social democrat who has decided to embrace culturally conservative causes (opposed to gay marriage, strongly opposed to mass migration especially of Muslims, for a tougher line towards the Roma) and is less pro-western / more pro-Russia than social democrats tend to be. And like trump he loves to troll the media whom he calls “lying prostitutes”. As I noted above, Slovakia is one of those places, like the rest of eastern Europe, where leftism anticorrelates with liberalism, so it’s the first place you would expect a red-brown coalition to emerge. I might be visiting Europe later this year and if possible I’d like to visit Slovakia.

Fico is probably my favourite European leader after Lukashenko in Belarus, so I was pleased to see they recently had a productive meeting where they agreed to try to intensify trade with each other. Fico in particular said he was looking forward to more trade with the “Eurasian Union” countries in future.

As for the FPO, in spite of the antipathy they arouse from some elements of the media and the political establishment, they appear to have been able to cooperate with social democrats in the past. They and the Social Democrats are currently vying for first place in Austrian opinion polls. President Van der Bellen has gone on record saying he’d refuse to recognize a FPO chancellor, so it may not happen any time soon, but I suspect it will happen eventually.

The FPO in Austria and the Danish People’s Party are two examples of ethnonationalist parties in Western Europe that have overcome the ‘toxic’ label at least enough to participate in coalition governments and influence the agenda.

I think anyone who’s sympathetic to ethnic nationalist causes in principle need to do a much better cause of regognizing the legitimate interests of Black Americans and their legitimate hostility to the idea that America isn’t their country.

The Blacks are developing their own ethnonationalism - it's called hotep nationalism.

http://hotepnation.com/

They do have an annoying "we wuz kangz" svidomist-like element but overall they're okay and I think I support them.

They are infinitely more sympathetic than the likes of Ta-Nahesi Coates, anyway.

Umm, do you really think this “hotep” nationalism (is that another one of those silly claims that ancient Egypt was a “black” civilization?) has any chance of taking off? Seems like just another fringe movement to me, like the Nation of Islam or similar nonsense. What’s it about America that it produces all those cult-like ethnonationalist movements that are so transparently silly? Similar with white nationalist movements…it’s all so obviously fake and artificial. Is is because everyone in the US (apart maybe from some Appalachian whites who live in the same areas where their ancestors have been for centuries) is so deracinated?

Um, Appalachian whites are actually some of the most 'deracinated' people in the country. In the sense that they're most likely to list their ethnic identity as simply "American", if you ask them. In New England or the Upper Midwest, white people much more commonly will self-describe as Polish, Slovak, Portuguese, German, Irish, etc..

I realize a lot of Europeans find it weird for a person who speaks no Polish, whose family have lived in America for three generations, etc.. to self-describe as 'Polish', but that's typically how people in the northeast and rust belt describe themselves. In Appalachia and the South, people are more likely to self describe as "American" or "White". Which actually seems weirder to me, since neither of these is actually an ethnic identity.

I think anyone who’s sympathetic to ethnic nationalist causes in principle need to do a much better cause of regognizing the legitimate interests of Black Americans and their legitimate hostility to the idea that America isn’t their country.

The Blacks are developing their own ethnonationalism - it's called hotep nationalism.

http://hotepnation.com/

They do have an annoying "we wuz kangz" svidomist-like element but overall they're okay and I think I support them.

They are infinitely more sympathetic than the likes of Ta-Nahesi Coates, anyway.

All ethnic nationalism has elements of svidomism when you choose to deconstruct it, but why would you? Myths serve an important social purpose (in this case, the purpose of preserving the variety and distinctness of human genetic and cultural diversity).

I don’t follow Indian politics in much of any detail, but in my idle moments I flirt with my own brand of ‘ethnic’ nationalism: I kind of wish the Southern Indian nationalists had been able to break away in the 1950s, as many of them hoped for, and form their own Dravida Nadu nation-state. Southern India is generally more educated / less patriarchal than the north, so of course they have lower fertility and have been losing demographic weight relative to the north ever since independence. That mythology of course has svidomist elements of its own, as do we all. (American patriotism is svidomist to the max, of course).

Some more UKIP thoughts. I wouldn’t be surprised if PM Cameron and now May pledging to reduce overall immigration into Britain to the tens of thousands per year (did MLP take this for her plan, just slicing off the “s” in tens, to ten thousand?) was a response to UKIP helping to move the Overton window over the years. Also, this election they are not running candidates against pro-Brexit Tories. I’d like to see them concentrate their fire against pro-remain Labour MP’s and for them to supplant Labour as Britains new working class party, much as FPO in Austria and FN in France has done. But, in a system without proportional representation its so hard for smaller parties of any ideology (just ask the British Greens about this) to win seats.

Umm, do you really think this "hotep" nationalism (is that another one of those silly claims that ancient Egypt was a "black" civilization?) has any chance of taking off? Seems like just another fringe movement to me, like the Nation of Islam or similar nonsense. What's it about America that it produces all those cult-like ethnonationalist movements that are so transparently silly? Similar with white nationalist movements...it's all so obviously fake and artificial. Is is because everyone in the US (apart maybe from some Appalachian whites who live in the same areas where their ancestors have been for centuries) is so deracinated?

Um, Appalachian whites are actually some of the most ‘deracinated’ people in the country. In the sense that they’re most likely to list their ethnic identity as simply “American”, if you ask them. In New England or the Upper Midwest, white people much more commonly will self-describe as Polish, Slovak, Portuguese, German, Irish, etc..

I realize a lot of Europeans find it weird for a person who speaks no Polish, whose family have lived in America for three generations, etc.. to self-describe as ‘Polish’, but that’s typically how people in the northeast and rust belt describe themselves. In Appalachia and the South, people are more likely to self describe as “American” or “White”. Which actually seems weirder to me, since neither of these is actually an ethnic identity.

Um, Appalachian whites are actually some of the most ‘deracinated’ people in the country.

But they're a somewhat cohesive, distinct community, with roots in the country going back several centuries. Now I suppose this might be offensive to many Americans, but when I think about the US they, together with dwindling WASP types and the descendants of black slaves, are like the closest thing to being real Americans that I can think of, in the sense that the US would be literally inconceivable without them. Anyway, I just wondered why the US has all those weird racialist-nationalist movements unhinged from historical reality. Now of course one may regard nationalism in general as pretty dumb. But at least England, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Russia etc. have all existed in some form for a thousand years...no doubt there is a lot of myth-making involved here, but at least there's some historical reality as foundation when e.g. an English nationalist would celebrate King Alfred and his successors as the creators of England. White and black nationalists in the US by contrast create totally bizarre fantasy narratives. You can see this in the bizarre appropriation of ancient Egypt by black nationalists (instead of more or less authentic African survivals, which to my surprise seem to have existed in some parts of the US, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullah ), but also in someone like Richard Spencer when he makes delusional statements like "I want a white empire in the northern hemisphere with global power projection capabilities".(sorry, if that's a bit of an incoherent rant, it's just something that I found rather weird).

Looking at these polls, it appears neither Melanchon's nor Fillon's supporters want anything to do with the FN.

Maybe the FN needs to come to think of themselves as "The True French."

France appears to be a lost cause. Let the rest of them have as much Islam as they wish. The FN is concentrated in certain areas, make those strongholds. Then engage in a cynical program of shamelessly wresting every last drop from the government teat, all while engaged in massive tax evasion on a personal level.

Make those stronghold areas. Given France's economic issues (and most of the other nations in the EU), I don't think the center is going to hold very much longer.

Maybe the Reconquista needs to be in France this time. There are a number of countries in the world where different groups exist in various states of uneasy peace. Well for a time.

Would be better to save France, but I guess that's not possible with anyone who wouldn't vote for Le Pen in this election. My god, Muslims kill people with axes in train stations, engage in other acts of terrorism, rape, ... all while doing nothing productive while sucking on the teats of the welfare state.

If that's not enough to convince anyone, it can't be done, or isn't worth anyone's time.

Maybe in twenty or thirty years Russia or China might provide support for an attempt to reclaim Paris. I don't know what happens to that place if the French welfare state breaks down. It may not be worth taking back honestly. All the churches will have been burned. Anything valuable will have been extracted and sold. All the works of art will have been looted, and sold to anyone interested across the world. The universities will converted to chickenshit Madrassas, and all the books in the libraries will be burned (except the ones they can sell).

Glad it's not my problem.

“Why consider it at this point?”

Um, because Anatoly brought it up?

Also for lots of other reasons (because the working class is a natural constituency of ethno-tribal politics, because cultural and economic collectivism plausibly go together, because diversity undermines the welfare state, because of a shared hostility to global capitalism and US imperialism, because both cultural change and neoliberal economics harm the working class, because there is no obvious connexion between tolerance of outsiders and one’s views on economics, because all actually existing socialist states had closed borders, etc..) But in this case it’s significant because Anatoly brought it up.

(i) Moldbug's argument is solely about the genesis of left-liberalism in the Anglosphere. This is actually one of its main weaknesses, but it makes your argument impertinent.

(ii) Moldbug's argument is that left-liberalism grew out of Dissenting Christianity. The political opinions of those who didn't keep up is neither here nor there. Moldbug is obviously aware that evangelical Christianity is tied up with American conservatism and this actually plays an important role in his thought.

(iii) Back when I used to read about these things, I think I read that the geographical centers of the Hugeunots when on to be the heartlands of French socialism. Perhaps someone can confirm whether this is so or not.

Catholics are more immune to racial theorizing. In the US the identity of being white was foreign to most Catholics. The process of breaking down citifies that destroyed ethnic communities changed that.

He could’ve killed way more children from al Qaeda affiliated families with way less fuss about it, just without chemical weapons.

It's not mutually exclusive.

Several testimonies reported the practice of sexual torture used on male detainees. Men were routinely made to undress and remain naked. Several former detainees testified reported beatings of genitals, forced oral sex, electroshocks and cigarette burns to the anus in detention facilities . . . Several of the detainees were repeatedly threatened that they would be raped in front of their family and that their wives and daughters would also be raped. Testimonies were received from several men who stated they had been anally raped with batons and that they had witnessed the rape of boys. One man stated that he witnessed a 15-year-old boy being raped in front of his father. A 40-year-old man saw the rape of an 11-year-old boy by three security services officers

Really, we're talking about a civil war that's been going on for six years, fought by low IQ people who hate each other, and your argument amounts to 'why would anyone do something so against his enlightened self interest?'. I have aspergers, but yeesh!

Iran has an average IQ of 84. It has the potential to be ... Mexico. It was doing better under the Shah because it was de facto being governed by whites (even so it wasn't doing that great.)

Lots of countries have oil, Saudi Arabia has done a good job with it. Compare with, say, Venezuela. You won't find Saudi Arabia inviting James Petras in to give them economic advice.

Anyway, the point isn't that Islamic regimes are better, just that they are no worse. The alt right seems to think that the most important thing in the world is that Syrian women can go to university and wear jeggings. I'm not sold.

You need to consider that in Syria the high-IQ groups were part of or at least supported the Assad government: weird religious sects (Alawites, the Druze), Christians, and urban Sunni elites. These will be mostly chased out or killed under any kind of Sunni fundamentalist regime.

The fact that even many of the dumb Sunni masses will also flee the paradise they created and thus swell the migrant populations already here in Europe will be a nice bonus.

But again, we’ve already assumed that one of the Sunni fundamentalist rebel groups will be able to destroy the rest and create some semblance of order. Unlikely. I’d bet on a Libya style continuing civil war.

Your points are all valid, and, for what it's worth, I think its undeniable that everything would have been much better had Assad successfully crushed the rebellion at the off. However, you're living in a fantasy world if you think he can just retake power when over half of the country would like nothing better than to slaughter him with their bare hands.

So what should be done? I've already said the only sensible thing is for some other country to run it. Turkey would actually be a good choice. After all they have a much better claim to be rightful rulers of Syria than some Alawite-Socialist mob family who hooked up with the Soviets. Another similar option would be to have small reasonably ethnically homogeneous states under the suzerainty of a regional power.

But all the sane options are ruled out before the discussion begins because in the upside down world order FDR built borders must simultaneously be infinitely porous and inviolable at the same time. So we are left with insane options. Normies fantasize about a moderate opposition that doesn't exist, Alt-Righters fantasize about a Cold War puppet junta somehow regaining the power it has already lost.

What is clear is that anything is better than civil war. The least bad option you can hope for is that something barely sane can be cobbled together out of the less extreme rebels and the old regime. Russia could facilitate this, but one of Putin's worse features is his insistence on backing up leaders till the end, even when, as in Venezuela, they literally destroy their country.

But this has nothing to do with the case in hand, which is Trump's strikes. Someone used chemical weapons. Trump bombed an airbase; now the more intelligent Ba'athists will do a better job of keeping a handle on the hotheads (a fortiori, if you are correct). Trump projected American power after 12 years of non-stop humiliation, he looked decisive, he picked up some free Arab popularity, and he sowed a bit of dissension between liberals and he far left. All that for no downside whatsoever. The closest thing I have got to a coherent explanation of why this is such a disaster is that it undermined your position in a Hungarian internet forum.

Um, Appalachian whites are actually some of the most 'deracinated' people in the country. In the sense that they're most likely to list their ethnic identity as simply "American", if you ask them. In New England or the Upper Midwest, white people much more commonly will self-describe as Polish, Slovak, Portuguese, German, Irish, etc..

I realize a lot of Europeans find it weird for a person who speaks no Polish, whose family have lived in America for three generations, etc.. to self-describe as 'Polish', but that's typically how people in the northeast and rust belt describe themselves. In Appalachia and the South, people are more likely to self describe as "American" or "White". Which actually seems weirder to me, since neither of these is actually an ethnic identity.

Um, Appalachian whites are actually some of the most ‘deracinated’ people in the country.

But they’re a somewhat cohesive, distinct community, with roots in the country going back several centuries. Now I suppose this might be offensive to many Americans, but when I think about the US they, together with dwindling WASP types and the descendants of black slaves, are like the closest thing to being real Americans that I can think of, in the sense that the US would be literally inconceivable without them.
Anyway, I just wondered why the US has all those weird racialist-nationalist movements unhinged from historical reality. Now of course one may regard nationalism in general as pretty dumb. But at least England, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Russia etc. have all existed in some form for a thousand years…no doubt there is a lot of myth-making involved here, but at least there’s some historical reality as foundation when e.g. an English nationalist would celebrate King Alfred and his successors as the creators of England. White and black nationalists in the US by contrast create totally bizarre fantasy narratives. You can see this in the bizarre appropriation of ancient Egypt by black nationalists (instead of more or less authentic African survivals, which to my surprise seem to have existed in some parts of the US, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullah ), but also in someone like Richard Spencer when he makes delusional statements like “I want a white empire in the northern hemisphere with global power projection capabilities”.
(sorry, if that’s a bit of an incoherent rant, it’s just something that I found rather weird).

Richard Spencer when he makes delusional statements like “I want a white empire in the northern hemisphere with global power projection capabilities”.

Imagine a US with a White Party (the Republican Party with a WN-esque ideology), with nationalist parties like the FN or FPÖ or AfD (but more right wing than these) in power in European countries. Now, these countries together in NATO would already constitute some kind of "white empire in the northern hemisphere with global power projection capabilities".

I'm often wondering that in maps of the early Roman Empire there's often just a country in Italy, and some cities are marked with different colors based on their allied or Latin or Roman etc. status. However, the people at the time probably thought the allied cities as basically independent countries which happened to be the satellite states of Rome. Or I could see some maps of the Frankish Empire, where vassal states are marked with similar (or even the same) color. Similarly, we now think that Germany is not part of the US. But perhaps future historians, when drawing maps of, say, 1970s Europe, will draw all NATO countries with the same color, and calling them some kind of "nominally independent satellite states of the US".

I wonder if it'll ever get formalized. I guess Spencer wouldn't be unhappy if it were. But it doesn't matter so much.

I mean, I wouldn't overestimate the significance of "Hotep" nationalism, of the Afrocentrists who draw connexions to ancient Egypt, or for that matter of white nationalism. All of these are pretty marginal movements numbers-wise. White nationalism just got in the news recently because they were energized by Trump's victory (we'll see how long that lasts). Most Americans, black or white, to the extent they're nationalistic at all, are captivated by the American civic-nationalist, Founding Fathers myth. Black people and liberal whites take a liberal line on the myth, and conservative whites take a conservative one. As I mentioned above, Malcolm X was one example of a Black intellectual who totally rejected the founding American myth, and was an ethnic nationalist. His ideology never converted all that many Black people though (for example, his goal for a separate African American political party totally failed).

“I want a white empire in the northern hemisphere with global power projection capabilities”.

I can't express how creepy and disgusting this is, and it's more evidence, if you needed it, that Richard Spencer is evil. He doesn't consistently reject the "invade the world, invite the world" paradigm. He wants to invade the world without inviting them. That is to say, he wants to re--create the Age of Empire without re-creating the immigrant flows that it (unfortunately) led to.

I dislike mass migration movements in general (there are exceptions) because I want to protect the freedom of small ethnic and national communities to be themselves, and because that depends both on the ability to exclude and the ability to control people leaving. Empires are totally incompatible with that. Empires are dedicated to bigness and power, which inevitably means squashing the independence of smaller and weaker peoples, and also means losing your own distinct identity as you swallow up subject peoples. Most empires I can think of has been multicultural to some degree, which is a good reason for people who believe in a world of distinct tribes- as I do, certainly, and as I think you do- to be hostile to the idea of empires. Humility and modesty are virtues for nation states as much as they are for individuals.

In addition, as of course you've pointed out, 'white' is a garbage identity that doesn't convey much of value, and that risks collapsing the distinction between different 'white' ethnic groups (as well as conjuring up fears from other people who have concerns, ill-founded or not, about falling victim to a 'white' empire). There are very significant differences- genetic, aesthetic, cultural, phenotypic- between Russians and Danes, and equally significant differences between either of them and Greeks. The ethnolinguistic differences between Danes and Germans, to pick two countries right next to each other, were enough for the whole Schleswig-Holstein question to become a thing. And the genetic population structure within Europe is significant enough that you can pick it out on genetic maps. Trying to synthesize some construct of a 'white' race is as unproductive and pernicious in my view as assuming that all'brown', 'yellow', or 'black' people have a lot in common or belong to a common racial group. I don't want to protect the identity of black people, or white people, or anything of that nature: I'd like a world in which Denmark can continue to be Danish, Czechia can continue to be Czech, Botswana can continue to be majority Tswana, Uganda for that matter can maintain its own cultural and ethnic makeup, and so forth.

Um, Appalachian whites are actually some of the most ‘deracinated’ people in the country.

But they're a somewhat cohesive, distinct community, with roots in the country going back several centuries. Now I suppose this might be offensive to many Americans, but when I think about the US they, together with dwindling WASP types and the descendants of black slaves, are like the closest thing to being real Americans that I can think of, in the sense that the US would be literally inconceivable without them. Anyway, I just wondered why the US has all those weird racialist-nationalist movements unhinged from historical reality. Now of course one may regard nationalism in general as pretty dumb. But at least England, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Russia etc. have all existed in some form for a thousand years...no doubt there is a lot of myth-making involved here, but at least there's some historical reality as foundation when e.g. an English nationalist would celebrate King Alfred and his successors as the creators of England. White and black nationalists in the US by contrast create totally bizarre fantasy narratives. You can see this in the bizarre appropriation of ancient Egypt by black nationalists (instead of more or less authentic African survivals, which to my surprise seem to have existed in some parts of the US, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullah ), but also in someone like Richard Spencer when he makes delusional statements like "I want a white empire in the northern hemisphere with global power projection capabilities".(sorry, if that's a bit of an incoherent rant, it's just something that I found rather weird).

Richard Spencer when he makes delusional statements like “I want a white empire in the northern hemisphere with global power projection capabilities”.

Imagine a US with a White Party (the Republican Party with a WN-esque ideology), with nationalist parties like the FN or FPÖ or AfD (but more right wing than these) in power in European countries. Now, these countries together in NATO would already constitute some kind of “white empire in the northern hemisphere with global power projection capabilities”.

I’m often wondering that in maps of the early Roman Empire there’s often just a country in Italy, and some cities are marked with different colors based on their allied or Latin or Roman etc. status. However, the people at the time probably thought the allied cities as basically independent countries which happened to be the satellite states of Rome. Or I could see some maps of the Frankish Empire, where vassal states are marked with similar (or even the same) color. Similarly, we now think that Germany is not part of the US. But perhaps future historians, when drawing maps of, say, 1970s Europe, will draw all NATO countries with the same color, and calling them some kind of “nominally independent satellite states of the US”.

I wonder if it’ll ever get formalized. I guess Spencer wouldn’t be unhappy if it were. But it doesn’t matter so much.

No thanks, I don't want all of us to become Americans, I'm sick of US influence as it is. I don't want some stupid empire where we all have to speak English and be told by deracinated WN weirdoes like Spencer who we supposedly are.
I'm very much in favour of cooperation between European nations though.

(1) Any true nationalist resurgence in the Greater European world will have to be broadbased because any singular uprisings can and will be crushed. (The US, the metropolis itself, is the only constituent element that can go it alone. *Maybe* a Greater Russia. But that's it).

(2) There are approximately one billion Europeans in the world. They will be far outnumbered by Africans half a century down the line, and there will probably be considerably more "smart fraction" Chinese people. Will small European nation-states, many of them riven by mounting ethnic tensions, be able to compete effectively in such a world?

Anyhow, while I don't necessarily support this Hyperborean Confederation idea, I can definitely see where Spencer is coming from.

perhaps future historians, when drawing maps of, say, 1970s Europe, will draw all NATO countries with the same color, and calling them some kind of “nominally independent satellite states of the US”.

That would be the correct interpretation of the situation in the post-WW2 period (which we are only just emerging from now - big wars have big consequences). But for that kind of interpretation a lot probably depends on future outcomes. Historians drawing maps of the early Roman situation knew that the Latinate allies ended up being incorporated into the Roman empire, and that probably influenced their view of them.

Similarly if the outcome of the post-WW2 situation were to be the incorporation of the US's European satellite states into some bigger unit under longer term US control (de facto or de jure), then that would probably influence how the earlier period is viewed.

Most likely, though, we've now passed the high tide of US global power, and Europe (mainland at least) will probably escape US influence and become a German-dominated independent power centre. That's unless, of course, some other world event like the early C20th world wars manages (by chance or by intent) to hand them another period of global hegemony.

Sadly, I suspect there's now little chance of my own country escaping absorption into the US bloc longer term. Too many dual loyalty and outright treasonous people in our elites who don't see any difference between US interests and our national interests (if they see any national interests at all other than US ones, that is). There might have been a brief moment of opportunity to re-establish our national independence after 1991 if we'd pushed for the immediate dissolution of NATO, but by then we were ruled by traitors, not nationalists. The only issue in doubt was whether the pro-US traitors or the pro-EU traitors would sell us down the river faster and further.

Richard Spencer when he makes delusional statements like “I want a white empire in the northern hemisphere with global power projection capabilities”.

Imagine a US with a White Party (the Republican Party with a WN-esque ideology), with nationalist parties like the FN or FPÖ or AfD (but more right wing than these) in power in European countries. Now, these countries together in NATO would already constitute some kind of "white empire in the northern hemisphere with global power projection capabilities".

I'm often wondering that in maps of the early Roman Empire there's often just a country in Italy, and some cities are marked with different colors based on their allied or Latin or Roman etc. status. However, the people at the time probably thought the allied cities as basically independent countries which happened to be the satellite states of Rome. Or I could see some maps of the Frankish Empire, where vassal states are marked with similar (or even the same) color. Similarly, we now think that Germany is not part of the US. But perhaps future historians, when drawing maps of, say, 1970s Europe, will draw all NATO countries with the same color, and calling them some kind of "nominally independent satellite states of the US".

I wonder if it'll ever get formalized. I guess Spencer wouldn't be unhappy if it were. But it doesn't matter so much.

No thanks, I don’t want all of us to become Americans, I’m sick of US influence as it is. I don’t want some stupid empire where we all have to speak English and be told by deracinated WN weirdoes like Spencer who we supposedly are.
I’m very much in favour of cooperation between European nations though.

"No thanks, I don’t want all of us to become Americans, I’m sick of US influence as it is. I don’t want some stupid empire where we all have to speak English and be told by deracinated WN weirdoes like Spencer who we supposedly are.
I’m very much in favour of cooperation between European nations though."

German, but not white. That's a pretty small tribe.

Not sure how many allies you will find in Western Europe and the Scandinavian countries either.

No thanks, I don't want all of us to become Americans, I'm sick of US influence as it is. I don't want some stupid empire where we all have to speak English and be told by deracinated WN weirdoes like Spencer who we supposedly are.
I'm very much in favour of cooperation between European nations though.

“No thanks, I don’t want all of us to become Americans, I’m sick of US influence as it is. I don’t want some stupid empire where we all have to speak English and be told by deracinated WN weirdoes like Spencer who we supposedly are.
I’m very much in favour of cooperation between European nations though.”

German, but not white. That’s a pretty small tribe.

Not sure how many allies you will find in Western Europe and the Scandinavian countries either.

Don't be silly, the two aren't mutually exclusive. I actually do feel a strong white identity. It's just that I find many of Spencer's statements pretty strange, to say the least. But we'll see if he ever produces something worthy of serious attention.

I say this with particular sadness as a German-American, but the Germans' suicidally low fertility rate will ensure that their "tribe" is a rapidly diminishing and eventually relatively insignificant and weak group.

To my German cousin: I understand your resentment of US and NATO warmongering, the baleful influence of what passes for popular culture in the USA these days, etc. But in light of the above, you will need us good & likeminded people from the USA and all the other help you can get.

Richard Spencer when he makes delusional statements like “I want a white empire in the northern hemisphere with global power projection capabilities”.

Imagine a US with a White Party (the Republican Party with a WN-esque ideology), with nationalist parties like the FN or FPÖ or AfD (but more right wing than these) in power in European countries. Now, these countries together in NATO would already constitute some kind of "white empire in the northern hemisphere with global power projection capabilities".

I'm often wondering that in maps of the early Roman Empire there's often just a country in Italy, and some cities are marked with different colors based on their allied or Latin or Roman etc. status. However, the people at the time probably thought the allied cities as basically independent countries which happened to be the satellite states of Rome. Or I could see some maps of the Frankish Empire, where vassal states are marked with similar (or even the same) color. Similarly, we now think that Germany is not part of the US. But perhaps future historians, when drawing maps of, say, 1970s Europe, will draw all NATO countries with the same color, and calling them some kind of "nominally independent satellite states of the US".

I wonder if it'll ever get formalized. I guess Spencer wouldn't be unhappy if it were. But it doesn't matter so much.

Counter-arguments:

(1) Any true nationalist resurgence in the Greater European world will have to be broadbased because any singular uprisings can and will be crushed. (The US, the metropolis itself, is the only constituent element that can go it alone. *Maybe* a Greater Russia. But that’s it).

(2) There are approximately one billion Europeans in the world. They will be far outnumbered by Africans half a century down the line, and there will probably be considerably more “smart fraction” Chinese people. Will small European nation-states, many of them riven by mounting ethnic tensions, be able to compete effectively in such a world?

Anyhow, while I don’t necessarily support this Hyperborean Confederation idea, I can definitely see where Spencer is coming from.

I have my doubts that there ever will be meaningful change in the US in this regard, the whole "nation of immigrants", constantly remade by new waves of mass immigration, mythology is just too strong there. And US influence in those matters is simply pernicious. So it would be logical for nationalists in Europe to adopt a strong anti-American stance, with the aim of throwing off US hegemony. Admittedly chances for success would probably be slight, and it would raise plenty of difficult and controversial issues (inter-European relations, relations with Russia, security structure etc.).

1) Africans don't think as a unified ethno-racial group any more than Europeans do. They unified in the past on exactly one issue (South Africa), that was a special case due to the history of colonialism in Africa, and even then the unity wasn't total. I don't know any other foreign policy issues where African countries are all unified. Certainly I haven't heard much criticism from African countries about restrictive immigration policies in Denmark, for example. On the contrary they quite like Danish people because of their extensive foreign aid.

Individual European states will be able to compete exactly the same way individual Asian, Latin-American or African states do: through trade, economic productivity, diplomatic alliances, and so forth. There's no inherent reason why African countries would be upset with restrictive immigration policies in a particular European country, if they feel like they're benefiting from that country in other ways (e.g. through foreign aid, exchange of skilled personnel and technologies, and through trade).

2) Regarding China, actually China could serve as a useful ally for European countries that want to defect from the liberal world order with all its implications. So could Russia. The Czech Republic, which by some opinion polling is the most Euroskeptic country in Europe (or at least was a year ago), is so partly because they can *afford* to be Euroskeptic. They do so much trade with China that they could afford to see some of their trade with the EU dry up. The biggest threats to ethno-nationalists in Europe aren't coming from China or Africa, or Russia: they're coming from liberals in their own countries, and from the EU. Better relations with China could serve as a sort of counterweight to the EU, at least down the road when China is the world's largest economy.

3) As I noted to German Reader, trying to synthesize / construct a 'white' race loses out on all of the interesting distinction in genetics, physical phenotype, culture and history that makes European countries what they are. I don't want to see Denmark and Germany folded together into some kind of trans-ethnic confederation, much less Germany and Poland, and much much less America and Russia.

4) Anyway, this whole 'we must unite to keep from being overpowered by bigger neighbors' is exactly the same poor logic that has justified many empires through history, including the EU and NATO. (And yes I know you said you don't support it). The basic flaw in the logic is that very often, the very act of uniting inspires fear among your opponents and draws into being the very kind of opposition and hostility that you were afraid of in the first place. Look at the way European nationalists have already suffered by association with Trump for example. Precisely because they're small and weak countries, Czech and Danish ethnic nationalism don't really scare people that much. The prospect of a global alliance of white people however is going to scare people very much, for many reasons, some of them good. (Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans were never imperialistic in Africa, for example: some other subgroups of 'white people' certainly were. And Black people in America probably couldn't care less about nationalists in small European countries, but for good reason they are going to fear the concept of 'white power' quite a bit).

Eliding distinctions between European nations in the service of forming an empire or confederation is not just going to sacrifice individual national ethnicities and cultures (which would be bad enough), but by forming a powerful bloc it will also promote fear and oppositions among people elsewhere in the world and will ultimately make you weaker. I have a better solution: let England be English, Poland be Polish, Austria be Austrian, Russia be Russian, and so forth.

"No thanks, I don’t want all of us to become Americans, I’m sick of US influence as it is. I don’t want some stupid empire where we all have to speak English and be told by deracinated WN weirdoes like Spencer who we supposedly are.
I’m very much in favour of cooperation between European nations though."

German, but not white. That's a pretty small tribe.

Not sure how many allies you will find in Western Europe and the Scandinavian countries either.

German, but not white.

Don’t be silly, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. I actually do feel a strong white identity. It’s just that I find many of Spencer’s statements pretty strange, to say the least. But we’ll see if he ever produces something worthy of serious attention.

(1) Any true nationalist resurgence in the Greater European world will have to be broadbased because any singular uprisings can and will be crushed. (The US, the metropolis itself, is the only constituent element that can go it alone. *Maybe* a Greater Russia. But that's it).

(2) There are approximately one billion Europeans in the world. They will be far outnumbered by Africans half a century down the line, and there will probably be considerably more "smart fraction" Chinese people. Will small European nation-states, many of them riven by mounting ethnic tensions, be able to compete effectively in such a world?

Anyhow, while I don't necessarily support this Hyperborean Confederation idea, I can definitely see where Spencer is coming from.

I have my doubts that there ever will be meaningful change in the US in this regard, the whole “nation of immigrants”, constantly remade by new waves of mass immigration, mythology is just too strong there. And US influence in those matters is simply pernicious. So it would be logical for nationalists in Europe to adopt a strong anti-American stance, with the aim of throwing off US hegemony. Admittedly chances for success would probably be slight, and it would raise plenty of difficult and controversial issues (inter-European relations, relations with Russia, security structure etc.).

So it would be logical for nationalists in Europe to adopt a strong anti-American stance, with the aim of throwing off US hegemony

A lot of the left-based nationalists have taken a pretty anti-American stance already (for different historical reasons, obviously) - smaller nationalist and secessionist groups like the Scottish nationalists, as well as the French FN and, I think, the modern Spanish and Greek movements.

The Irish nationalists would have as well, imo, if they weren't getting most of their terrorism funded by Americans.

Part of the reason for the prevalence of the Russophobic nonsense in Europe, imo, is precisely to forestall any kind of anti-US consensus from getting established. For now, the European elites who use their media control to set the agenda on this kind of thing still see their own interests as tied in with the US money elites who still control all the main global money institutions.

Admittedly chances for success would probably be slight

It looks difficult now, but the key point is that the US share of global gdp (ppp) is still steadily declining, from over 20% in the 1980s (nearly 30% at its peak in the 1950s) to a forecast below 15% by 2020.

There's a lot of lag in the power balances responding to that kind of steady relative decline, but in the end it's going to tell, unless something dramatic happens to change the course of history again. As the German elites get more confident in their dominant position in Europe they are going to separate themselves from US control, and there's going to be little the US elites can do to prevent it.

Richard Spencer when he makes delusional statements like “I want a white empire in the northern hemisphere with global power projection capabilities”.

Imagine a US with a White Party (the Republican Party with a WN-esque ideology), with nationalist parties like the FN or FPÖ or AfD (but more right wing than these) in power in European countries. Now, these countries together in NATO would already constitute some kind of "white empire in the northern hemisphere with global power projection capabilities".

I'm often wondering that in maps of the early Roman Empire there's often just a country in Italy, and some cities are marked with different colors based on their allied or Latin or Roman etc. status. However, the people at the time probably thought the allied cities as basically independent countries which happened to be the satellite states of Rome. Or I could see some maps of the Frankish Empire, where vassal states are marked with similar (or even the same) color. Similarly, we now think that Germany is not part of the US. But perhaps future historians, when drawing maps of, say, 1970s Europe, will draw all NATO countries with the same color, and calling them some kind of "nominally independent satellite states of the US".

I wonder if it'll ever get formalized. I guess Spencer wouldn't be unhappy if it were. But it doesn't matter so much.

perhaps future historians, when drawing maps of, say, 1970s Europe, will draw all NATO countries with the same color, and calling them some kind of “nominally independent satellite states of the US”.

That would be the correct interpretation of the situation in the post-WW2 period (which we are only just emerging from now – big wars have big consequences). But for that kind of interpretation a lot probably depends on future outcomes. Historians drawing maps of the early Roman situation knew that the Latinate allies ended up being incorporated into the Roman empire, and that probably influenced their view of them.

Similarly if the outcome of the post-WW2 situation were to be the incorporation of the US’s European satellite states into some bigger unit under longer term US control (de facto or de jure), then that would probably influence how the earlier period is viewed.

Most likely, though, we’ve now passed the high tide of US global power, and Europe (mainland at least) will probably escape US influence and become a German-dominated independent power centre. That’s unless, of course, some other world event like the early C20th world wars manages (by chance or by intent) to hand them another period of global hegemony.

Sadly, I suspect there’s now little chance of my own country escaping absorption into the US bloc longer term. Too many dual loyalty and outright treasonous people in our elites who don’t see any difference between US interests and our national interests (if they see any national interests at all other than US ones, that is). There might have been a brief moment of opportunity to re-establish our national independence after 1991 if we’d pushed for the immediate dissolution of NATO, but by then we were ruled by traitors, not nationalists. The only issue in doubt was whether the pro-US traitors or the pro-EU traitors would sell us down the river faster and further.

Most likely, though, we’ve now passed the high tide of US global power, and Europe (mainland at least) will probably escape US influence and become a German-dominated independent power centre.

I doubt that will happen...Germany might well go down in a bad way unless current trends are drastically reversed (which looks unlikely); I also don't think economic prospects are that good long-term. And too much German dominance would probably lead to some sort of reaction among Germany's neighbours anyway.
Regarding the UK, I find its entire trajectory since 1945 pretty sad, but apparently a large part of the British public has no problem with their country being merely a satellite of the US...certainly US hegemony and cultural influence never aroused the opposition the EU did.

Well put, sir. I'll just note that the US government, NATO, the UN, the IMF, Hollywood, etc., are manifestly NOT serving the interests of us Americans, either. They're not even trying to serve our interests, in fact.

Good Germans, good Americans, and normal people from other European countries are in a very similar boat and must get together against heartless globalism, endless warfare, warrantless surveillance, and mass immivasion / demographic replacement.

perhaps future historians, when drawing maps of, say, 1970s Europe, will draw all NATO countries with the same color, and calling them some kind of “nominally independent satellite states of the US”.

That would be the correct interpretation of the situation in the post-WW2 period (which we are only just emerging from now - big wars have big consequences). But for that kind of interpretation a lot probably depends on future outcomes. Historians drawing maps of the early Roman situation knew that the Latinate allies ended up being incorporated into the Roman empire, and that probably influenced their view of them.

Similarly if the outcome of the post-WW2 situation were to be the incorporation of the US's European satellite states into some bigger unit under longer term US control (de facto or de jure), then that would probably influence how the earlier period is viewed.

Most likely, though, we've now passed the high tide of US global power, and Europe (mainland at least) will probably escape US influence and become a German-dominated independent power centre. That's unless, of course, some other world event like the early C20th world wars manages (by chance or by intent) to hand them another period of global hegemony.

Sadly, I suspect there's now little chance of my own country escaping absorption into the US bloc longer term. Too many dual loyalty and outright treasonous people in our elites who don't see any difference between US interests and our national interests (if they see any national interests at all other than US ones, that is). There might have been a brief moment of opportunity to re-establish our national independence after 1991 if we'd pushed for the immediate dissolution of NATO, but by then we were ruled by traitors, not nationalists. The only issue in doubt was whether the pro-US traitors or the pro-EU traitors would sell us down the river faster and further.

Most likely, though, we’ve now passed the high tide of US global power, and Europe (mainland at least) will probably escape US influence and become a German-dominated independent power centre.

I doubt that will happen…Germany might well go down in a bad way unless current trends are drastically reversed (which looks unlikely); I also don’t think economic prospects are that good long-term. And too much German dominance would probably lead to some sort of reaction among Germany’s neighbours anyway.
Regarding the UK, I find its entire trajectory since 1945 pretty sad, but apparently a large part of the British public has no problem with their country being merely a satellite of the US…certainly US hegemony and cultural influence never aroused the opposition the EU did.

You and me both. Though the post-1945 subordination to the US was at least necessary, as I've noted before - we were in no shape in 1945 to resist either of the two superpowers devoted to destroying what was left of our empire, and the only option was to side with one or the other - that choice was easy, even if lots of our political and business leaders hadn't been half or more American anyway.

There was no excuse for continuing that subservience after the Soviet Union disappeared, though. That was down to pure greed and treasonous external loyalties and interests on the part of our elites.

, but apparently a large part of the British public has no problem with their country being merely a satellite of the US…certainly US hegemony and cultural influence never aroused the opposition the EU did.

Apart from the aforementioned fifth column (if you can call it that when they are openly running the country), we lacked the protection of a distinct language. It's a famous quip that the US and Britain are "two countries divided by a common language", but in reality that is one of the fundamental protections against external domination.

I have my doubts that there ever will be meaningful change in the US in this regard, the whole "nation of immigrants", constantly remade by new waves of mass immigration, mythology is just too strong there. And US influence in those matters is simply pernicious. So it would be logical for nationalists in Europe to adopt a strong anti-American stance, with the aim of throwing off US hegemony. Admittedly chances for success would probably be slight, and it would raise plenty of difficult and controversial issues (inter-European relations, relations with Russia, security structure etc.).

So it would be logical for nationalists in Europe to adopt a strong anti-American stance, with the aim of throwing off US hegemony

A lot of the left-based nationalists have taken a pretty anti-American stance already (for different historical reasons, obviously) – smaller nationalist and secessionist groups like the Scottish nationalists, as well as the French FN and, I think, the modern Spanish and Greek movements.

The Irish nationalists would have as well, imo, if they weren’t getting most of their terrorism funded by Americans.

Part of the reason for the prevalence of the Russophobic nonsense in Europe, imo, is precisely to forestall any kind of anti-US consensus from getting established. For now, the European elites who use their media control to set the agenda on this kind of thing still see their own interests as tied in with the US money elites who still control all the main global money institutions.

Admittedly chances for success would probably be slight

It looks difficult now, but the key point is that the US share of global gdp (ppp) is still steadily declining, from over 20% in the 1980s (nearly 30% at its peak in the 1950s) to a forecast below 15% by 2020.

There’s a lot of lag in the power balances responding to that kind of steady relative decline, but in the end it’s going to tell, unless something dramatic happens to change the course of history again. As the German elites get more confident in their dominant position in Europe they are going to separate themselves from US control, and there’s going to be little the US elites can do to prevent it.

Most likely, though, we’ve now passed the high tide of US global power, and Europe (mainland at least) will probably escape US influence and become a German-dominated independent power centre.

I doubt that will happen...Germany might well go down in a bad way unless current trends are drastically reversed (which looks unlikely); I also don't think economic prospects are that good long-term. And too much German dominance would probably lead to some sort of reaction among Germany's neighbours anyway.
Regarding the UK, I find its entire trajectory since 1945 pretty sad, but apparently a large part of the British public has no problem with their country being merely a satellite of the US...certainly US hegemony and cultural influence never aroused the opposition the EU did.

Regarding the UK, I find its entire trajectory since 1945 pretty sad

You and me both. Though the post-1945 subordination to the US was at least necessary, as I’ve noted before – we were in no shape in 1945 to resist either of the two superpowers devoted to destroying what was left of our empire, and the only option was to side with one or the other – that choice was easy, even if lots of our political and business leaders hadn’t been half or more American anyway.

There was no excuse for continuing that subservience after the Soviet Union disappeared, though. That was down to pure greed and treasonous external loyalties and interests on the part of our elites.

, but apparently a large part of the British public has no problem with their country being merely a satellite of the US…certainly US hegemony and cultural influence never aroused the opposition the EU did.

Apart from the aforementioned fifth column (if you can call it that when they are openly running the country), we lacked the protection of a distinct language. It’s a famous quip that the US and Britain are “two countries divided by a common language”, but in reality that is one of the fundamental protections against external domination.

"we lacked the protection of a distinct language. It’s a famous quip that the US and Britain are “two countries divided by a common language”, but in reality that is one of the fundamental protections against external domination."

That's something I really don't understand, the bizarre affection many people in Britain today seem to have towards the US. I know from my personal family background that it wasn't always like this; I'm obviously quite thoroughly German and have spent all my life in Germany, but my father's English, so I have some insight from his recollections into Britain in the 1950s and 1960s. According to him there was a distinct sense among many that the US had humiliated Britain during the 1940s and 1950s, and done much to undermine independent British power. My grandfather certainly didn't have a positive opinion of the American troops he met in North Africa in 1942/43 (he thought them arrogant, with all their equipment and plentiful rations, while the British had so much less). Now those sentiments may have been very unfair to the US (after all alliance with it was necessary against the German threat), but they existed, and they can't have been totally atypical. But somehow Britain seems to have developed in a very different direction in the past 40 years or so...it baffles me how those bizarre "Anglosphere" concepts have gained so much traction. I wonder if that illusion will finally evaporate when Hispanics and Asians get ever more politically influential in the US (both groups seem to feel no special affection or reverence for Britain).
But anyway, Germany isn't necessarily that different in this regard...it's fairly Americanized as well in some parts, and unthinking Atlanticism is the default setting for political and media elites.

You and me both. Though the post-1945 subordination to the US was at least necessary, as I've noted before - we were in no shape in 1945 to resist either of the two superpowers devoted to destroying what was left of our empire, and the only option was to side with one or the other - that choice was easy, even if lots of our political and business leaders hadn't been half or more American anyway.

There was no excuse for continuing that subservience after the Soviet Union disappeared, though. That was down to pure greed and treasonous external loyalties and interests on the part of our elites.

, but apparently a large part of the British public has no problem with their country being merely a satellite of the US…certainly US hegemony and cultural influence never aroused the opposition the EU did.

Apart from the aforementioned fifth column (if you can call it that when they are openly running the country), we lacked the protection of a distinct language. It's a famous quip that the US and Britain are "two countries divided by a common language", but in reality that is one of the fundamental protections against external domination.

“we lacked the protection of a distinct language. It’s a famous quip that the US and Britain are “two countries divided by a common language”, but in reality that is one of the fundamental protections against external domination.”

That’s something I really don’t understand, the bizarre affection many people in Britain today seem to have towards the US. I know from my personal family background that it wasn’t always like this; I’m obviously quite thoroughly German and have spent all my life in Germany, but my father’s English, so I have some insight from his recollections into Britain in the 1950s and 1960s. According to him there was a distinct sense among many that the US had humiliated Britain during the 1940s and 1950s, and done much to undermine independent British power. My grandfather certainly didn’t have a positive opinion of the American troops he met in North Africa in 1942/43 (he thought them arrogant, with all their equipment and plentiful rations, while the British had so much less). Now those sentiments may have been very unfair to the US (after all alliance with it was necessary against the German threat), but they existed, and they can’t have been totally atypical. But somehow Britain seems to have developed in a very different direction in the past 40 years or so…it baffles me how those bizarre “Anglosphere” concepts have gained so much traction. I wonder if that illusion will finally evaporate when Hispanics and Asians get ever more politically influential in the US (both groups seem to feel no special affection or reverence for Britain).
But anyway, Germany isn’t necessarily that different in this regard…it’s fairly Americanized as well in some parts, and unthinking Atlanticism is the default setting for political and media elites.

You are absolutely correct about older British attitudes towards the US. For a prominent exemplar consider the great British politician and patriot Enoch Powell. His recognition of the US as fundamentally a hostile rival power, albeit an ally of convenience, and of Americans as foreigners, was nothing particularly unusual in elite circles when he was growing up in the interwar years.

What changed was the status of Britain and the increasingly Americanised nature, interests and needs of the elites who rule Britain, and although those changes were under way in the interwar years, it was WW2 which administered the coup de grace to Britain as a global peer rival of the US and turned us into a lower level state that faced the choice of satellite or destruction.

But many, as you describe, still had attitudes formed in the previous period, when the US was a rival power. Those people were brutally side-lined like Powell, or just replaced over time by people of younger generations who were indoctrinated into seeing the US as the fount of all that's good and cool. This served the purposes of the elites who set the post-WW2 media and political agendas, many of whom were either American themselves or had substantial family, business or work interests in the US. The exceptions were those loyal to the hard left who tended to align themselves with the Soviet or non-aligned states in world affairs and saw the US as an ideological threat, but that group were comprehensively defeated in the 1980s.

So it's partly a change in the underlying realities, and partly simple indoctrination, that explains the dramatic change in attitudes. But there is still quite a lot of healthy anti-American national self-respect around, it's just not often openly expressed and usually coded as anti-capitalism.

But anyway, Germany isn’t necessarily that different in this regard…it’s fairly Americanized as well in some parts, and unthinking Atlanticism is the default setting for political and media elites.

I think that will likely change when the economic basics change. As I noted, the US still has its post-WW2 control of the main levers and institutions of global economic power, but that cannot last forever in the face of US relative decline, and certainly the Chinese and Russians are working to provide mechanisms to evade and escape that control. So far the US elites have managed to postpone the inevitable, but the pressure will only build higher and higher as the US becomes ever less central to the lives of people around the world. Eventually it will break, and then the German elites (as with many others around the world) will see their interests as lying elsewhere. This process has already started in east Asia.

That’s something I really don’t understand, the bizarre affection many people in Britain today seem to have towards the US.

I haven't lived in the UK for 15 years so take for what it's worth, but in my 40+ years I've never noticed this "bizarre affection" - unless, of course, you are a typical leftist who thinks any ethnic connection between peoples is a "bizarre affection".

I know British politicians tend to be American lickspittles but that's obviously different from the people themselves, who don't vote on foreign policy, so I'm wondering what you are referring to.

Trump bombed an airbase because one of Assad’s goons got a hard on and went too far.

We don't know why he bombed that airbase, what we know is that it didn't much help him much domestically (they still want to impeach him, you guessed it, for Russia collusion, among other things), and it lengthened the war in Syria (which could only end with an Assad victory - because, as is well-known to everybody even minimally informed, Assad's opposition is incapable of governance, so weakening Assad could only result in the sad deaths of even more children, either in a never-ending civil war like Libya, or in a now longer civil war ending with Assad's victory).

Even if all the claims of an Assad chemical attack were true (which is far from proven, and to be honest, not even quite plausible), this would only mean that Trump would now be conducting his foreign policy based on sad pictures on teevee. Talk about some faggotry.

this would only mean that Trump would now be conducting his foreign policy based on sad pictures on teevee.

That isn’t why he did it. He has to work with the GOP leadership, the armed services and with our allies abroad. His credibility would have been fatally damaged if he hadn’t done something. So he made a statement and did a show bombing but did nothing that actually hurt Assad.

You and me both. Though the post-1945 subordination to the US was at least necessary, as I've noted before - we were in no shape in 1945 to resist either of the two superpowers devoted to destroying what was left of our empire, and the only option was to side with one or the other - that choice was easy, even if lots of our political and business leaders hadn't been half or more American anyway.

There was no excuse for continuing that subservience after the Soviet Union disappeared, though. That was down to pure greed and treasonous external loyalties and interests on the part of our elites.

, but apparently a large part of the British public has no problem with their country being merely a satellite of the US…certainly US hegemony and cultural influence never aroused the opposition the EU did.

Apart from the aforementioned fifth column (if you can call it that when they are openly running the country), we lacked the protection of a distinct language. It's a famous quip that the US and Britain are "two countries divided by a common language", but in reality that is one of the fundamental protections against external domination.

Re-Red/Brown alliance. That is all true. However, the fact that it hasn't worked even in Eastern Europe - there are very real differences between the KPRF and LDPR - just goes to further show how hopeless the project is.

Anyhow, a necessary clarification - I myself am not interested in or invested into any ideological project, including a Red/Brown alliance. I am primarily interested in what works. That is ambiguous, so let me clarify further: I am interested in the preservation of civilization and its betterment.

Things such as mass Third World immigration, dysgenics, and various existential risks imperil civilization.

Socialism per se doesn't imperil civilization, though it seems pretty to clear to me taht free markets have tended to be more conductive to human flourishing. That said, average IQs are clearly more important, so I would be very willing to forego considerable economic freedoms if leftists offered a saner biopolitics (I do, after all, unreservedly support Le Pen over Macron). In practice, however, it is the European leftists who also tend to be the craziest open borders lunatics, so in practice it's not a tradeoff that I personally even have to worry about.

Re-Richard Spencer. As per the above, I'm not on any sort of ideological crusade here. I am not going to say "nice" or "bad" things about people based on how well their ideas jive with a political program that I do not even share.

Anatoly,

Let me respond to a couple more things you said in more detail, now I’ve had a day to think.

Thank you for the clarification: I was unaware that you really don’t have a political program of any sorts. Even still though, regarding “not being on an ideological crusade here”, of course it’s your blog and you can talk, or not talk, about whatever you feel like. I’m grateful to you for providing a space for discourse, so I’m not inclined to try to suggest to you what to talk about. That said, if it were me, I would feel both an intellectual and to some extent a moral obligation to try to clarify my opinion on both where I agreed and where I disagreed with other ethnic nationalists of the present and the past, to offer some kind of indications as to why my ideas would avoid the worst evils associated with some ethnic nationalists in the past, and to express something about the limits beyond which ethnic nationalism ought not to go. I’m someone who, after all, has been tarred alternately as a communist, a fascist, and a theocrat, so I’m not unfamiliar with having to clarify my opinions and to express exactly what I agree with and what I disagree with about such regimes. Ethnic nationalism is probably the most significant political trend in the world right now, it is unquestionably going to shape the medium term future of much of Europe, and probably other parts of the world as well. To a great extent (in my view) I think it will do so for good, but it has great potential for evil as well. I think those of us who are sympathetic to the tiger that’s been unleashed, at least to some extent, have the obligation to use our intellectual and moral influence to try to control it and to tame its worst potential for excesses, and to criticize it when it goes too far. Then again, that’s just what I would do: you’re free to make or not to make whatever statement you choose. I know you don’t support things like Mr. Spencer’s creepy Nazi-esque cosplay, nor his dream of making America a white people’s homeland, nor the fantasies of some European tribalists about re-enacting the Spanish Reconquista and forcibly expelling all Muslims and Jews from Europe: neither do I.

On a more concrete note, regarding Red-Brown alliances, I don’t think the case for their being hopeless in eastern Europe is as clear as you suggest. Let’s take a few countries in order. And let me specify that when I say red-brown I mean *red* and *brown*, i.e. alliances between the far left and ethnonationalists, not liberals or the centre left.

Poland- there is no ‘red’ in Poland, so question doesn’t apply.
Hungary – the one truly “Red” party is as reiner Tor says, electorally irrelevant, so it doesn’t even matter. That said, Thurmer has gone on record as supporting Orban’s immigration policy, so it’s certainly possible.
Czech Republic- they have a significant ‘Red’ party but no significant ‘Brown’ party. This is probably because all the major parties are already quite tough on immigration, so they don’t feel the need for one. That being said, the “Reds” have gone on record opposing the mass resettlement of migrants in the CR, as has the Social-Democratic president Zeman. So I think you could argue here that the Reds already have a shade of brown in them.
Russia- as you correctly point out, the KPRF and the LDPR disagree on a whole hell of a lot, and are not going to ally any time soon. That’s fine though because the KPRF is already more critical of immigration than Putin is. E.g. consider how they responded to the Uzbek nanny gate scandal, or the statement that they issued about how mass immigration was a product of capitalist-induced inequality between nations. Again I think we can say the Reds here already have a shade of brown.
Fico- probably the best example of the left in power pursuing a culturally conservative “Brown” agenda. He’s the best example.
Romania- the Greater Romania party was a quite influential red brown alliance in the 1990s, but I suppose they’re defunct today. That said, there are some politicians in the socialist party who are trying to form a “social-patriot” movement critical of immigration.
Bulgaria- the Socialists endorsed an anti-migration general for president last year. IIRC the Ataka party is also left wing on economics while being ultra-nationalist.

I don’t think the case for red-brown alliances being hopeless, at least in the east, is as clear going forward as you think. In France, yes, you’re right that they have shown to be hopeless, as MLP’s failure demonstrates.

There is "Red" in Poland. The "RAzem" party with 4% support, with a leader seen with traditional communists and retards with Che Guevera t-shirts. There is also some 4% older SLD. And, there is communist party of Poland, despite years of offert to delegalise it (because supposedly constitution forbids only totalitarian methods, and communist party which only advocates peacefully for communism is within range of political views allowed by constitution). Similarly, the "Brown" are NOP (number of supporters in the range of few hundreds) and, slightly less radical and vehemently denying that they are fascists, ONR (number of supporters in the range of few thousands). Then, there are nationalists proper, few percentage of voters. The rest are normal parties, though I guess in the Western Europe they would be called dangerous fascist neo-nazi populist parties, because they refuse to walk in LGBT events, admit immigrants and they do not think sovereign states are something wrong.

1. I don’t get why Anatoly is surprised that people don’t care about non-interventionism. Why would they? Anybody who is surprised by this has spent too much time online. As long as there are no major wars and no boots and the ground, the public doesn’t mind blowing up stuff in the middle east.

2. I don’t know if Anatoly is trying to paint a pessimistic picture of France or what, but the big picture is that Marine doubled her old man’s performance from 15 years back and is now officially the leader of the opposition in France with the cucks having been disposed of. Those public opinion polls mean nothing, similar polls done in the US show that most working class whites want amnesty and yet they voted for Trump at historic margins. It’s called revealed preference.

3. The low turnout in the election is actually a good sign. It shows that the French public have lost faith in politics and their leaders. This is fertile ground for radicalization.

4. Macron still has to govern. It really frustrates me that people don’t realize this. He is going to fail spectacularly because France’s situation is unfixable. The failure of Macron will be devastating to the French political class, setting up Marine to win over 40% next time.

5. In the meantime, the growing Muslim population will be a great force against gay and women’s rights.

Social mobility is largely a myth. For whatever reason (inherited intelligence, temperamental traits, family culture, etc.) those at the top tend to stay at the top. If you hope that France’s working class (including its cops) will ever have a chance of “taking the country back”, you will be disappointed. While successful revolutions and radical societal changes have often appealed to and presented themselves as being of the masses, in reality the critical component was that of an inter-elite struggle. Some of the successful ones that come to mind:

French Revolution – monarchs, nobles and the Church overthrown by lawyers and noble renegades

Russian Revolution – monarchy overthrown and country taken over by renegade-degenerates from the upper classes, alongside educated and resentful members of ethnic minorities, using workers as their instruments

American Revolution – British monarchy driven out by gentlemen planters and New England merchants

Abolition of slavery – led by rich Northerners, not a self-liberation of slaves

I can’t think of many radical changes that in essence occurred from the bottom up. There might be some examples (Haiti? – though the leader of that one was said to be the son of a captured and enslaved African prince) but these seem to be rare.

If you want something done in France, or elsewhere, you’ve got to get a lot of the elite on your side. Not all, but perhaps at least 25% of them. Accordingly, choosing to write off and vilify the Parisian (or Moscow, or whatever) elites as the enemy is self-defeating. Those are precisely whom you must convince if you want to succeed. Get them on board somehow.

this would only mean that Trump would now be conducting his foreign policy based on sad pictures on teevee.

That isn't why he did it. He has to work with the GOP leadership, the armed services and with our allies abroad. His credibility would have been fatally damaged if he hadn't done something. So he made a statement and did a show bombing but did nothing that actually hurt Assad.

His credibility would have been fatally damaged if he hadn’t done something.

Only because he shot his mouth off during the press conference with the King of Jordan. Before that he never said or indicated (quite wisely, in my opinion) that he cared what methods Assad was using.

because, as is well-known to everybody even minimally informed, Assad’s opposition is incapable of governance

Islamic fundamentalists do a pretty good job of running Saudi Arabia and a so-so job of running Iran. The myth that secular leaders are better at running countries than religious fundamentalists is just another piece of retro leftism that the alt right have jumped on to for want of being able to come up with their own ideas.

Obviously, the best thing would simply be for some other country to take over and run Syria. Russia has local connections, so they could do it. Saudi Arabia would probably do pretty well too. The problem is we can't have imperialism any more, but that's not Trump's fault. It's not really anyone's fault, it's just the rules we inherited from people long dead who didn't really know what they were doing either.

Racially and religiously diverse countries with low human capital and excess unemployable males just shouldn't govern themselves. Period. But they do, and there we are.

Even if all the claims of an Assad chemical attack were true (which is far from proven, and to be honest, not even quite plausible)

There's nothing even mildly implausible about it. You don't even have to bring in HBD. Look at atrocities during the American civil war. What do you think they would have done if they had chemical weapons?

But none of this matters. Trump bombed an airbase; people who watch NASCAR thought this was cool; his wife gave him a blow job; nothing bad came of it, no-one cares except monomaniacs.

You are a mendacious Zionist snake, and all your deceitful and mutually inconsistent arguments are deployed to serve the interest of Israel in the immediate context.

Because people are incredibly stupid, and don't understand how all-important immigration is.

On an off topic note, Orbán is now losing his support among the well-educated in Hungary - not a good omen, even if he still seems to hold his support among the rest. He'll probably easily win in 2018, especially since his opposition consists of incompetent hacks and idiots, but once a credible opposition arises, he'll be finished. It probably won't happen this time, but could easily happen by 2022.

Is there evidence of Orban losing support other than from pollsters? As is no secret and this post confirms, many players in the polling industry, even in the richest countries, lack integrity or competence, often both.

For those worried about the FN’s lack of appeal to and support from the rich and well-connected, it’s worth keeping an eye on the potential disintegration and recomposition both of FN and LR. A new party could combine those unhappy with the MLP-Philippot line (including MMLP Herself) with LR figures like Laurent Wauquiez. Originating from the grande bourgeoisie and formerly on the centre-left, he is decisive, ambitious and has taken strong positions against Calais migrants and homo “marriage”.

"we lacked the protection of a distinct language. It’s a famous quip that the US and Britain are “two countries divided by a common language”, but in reality that is one of the fundamental protections against external domination."

That's something I really don't understand, the bizarre affection many people in Britain today seem to have towards the US. I know from my personal family background that it wasn't always like this; I'm obviously quite thoroughly German and have spent all my life in Germany, but my father's English, so I have some insight from his recollections into Britain in the 1950s and 1960s. According to him there was a distinct sense among many that the US had humiliated Britain during the 1940s and 1950s, and done much to undermine independent British power. My grandfather certainly didn't have a positive opinion of the American troops he met in North Africa in 1942/43 (he thought them arrogant, with all their equipment and plentiful rations, while the British had so much less). Now those sentiments may have been very unfair to the US (after all alliance with it was necessary against the German threat), but they existed, and they can't have been totally atypical. But somehow Britain seems to have developed in a very different direction in the past 40 years or so...it baffles me how those bizarre "Anglosphere" concepts have gained so much traction. I wonder if that illusion will finally evaporate when Hispanics and Asians get ever more politically influential in the US (both groups seem to feel no special affection or reverence for Britain).
But anyway, Germany isn't necessarily that different in this regard...it's fairly Americanized as well in some parts, and unthinking Atlanticism is the default setting for political and media elites.

You are absolutely correct about older British attitudes towards the US. For a prominent exemplar consider the great British politician and patriot Enoch Powell. His recognition of the US as fundamentally a hostile rival power, albeit an ally of convenience, and of Americans as foreigners, was nothing particularly unusual in elite circles when he was growing up in the interwar years.

What changed was the status of Britain and the increasingly Americanised nature, interests and needs of the elites who rule Britain, and although those changes were under way in the interwar years, it was WW2 which administered the coup de grace to Britain as a global peer rival of the US and turned us into a lower level state that faced the choice of satellite or destruction.

But many, as you describe, still had attitudes formed in the previous period, when the US was a rival power. Those people were brutally side-lined like Powell, or just replaced over time by people of younger generations who were indoctrinated into seeing the US as the fount of all that’s good and cool. This served the purposes of the elites who set the post-WW2 media and political agendas, many of whom were either American themselves or had substantial family, business or work interests in the US. The exceptions were those loyal to the hard left who tended to align themselves with the Soviet or non-aligned states in world affairs and saw the US as an ideological threat, but that group were comprehensively defeated in the 1980s.

So it’s partly a change in the underlying realities, and partly simple indoctrination, that explains the dramatic change in attitudes. But there is still quite a lot of healthy anti-American national self-respect around, it’s just not often openly expressed and usually coded as anti-capitalism.

But anyway, Germany isn’t necessarily that different in this regard…it’s fairly Americanized as well in some parts, and unthinking Atlanticism is the default setting for political and media elites.

I think that will likely change when the economic basics change. As I noted, the US still has its post-WW2 control of the main levers and institutions of global economic power, but that cannot last forever in the face of US relative decline, and certainly the Chinese and Russians are working to provide mechanisms to evade and escape that control. So far the US elites have managed to postpone the inevitable, but the pressure will only build higher and higher as the US becomes ever less central to the lives of people around the world. Eventually it will break, and then the German elites (as with many others around the world) will see their interests as lying elsewhere. This process has already started in east Asia.

Thank you four your reply; it confirms my impression of Britain's post-war development...though I still don't fully understand the process (maybe my father's youth in 1950s and 1960s Lancashire was atypical, but he doesn't recall many people in love with the US as seems to be so common in today's UK...instead quite a few very right-wing nationalists, and left-wingers who admired the Soviet Union). Regarding Germany, I think its prospects are extremely bleak long-term...it may look dominant now, but a lot of that is built on feet of clay in my opinion. There are many fields of technology in which Germany isn't relevant at all and infrastructure is decaying. The main problem of course is the extremely low birth rate; couple that with Merkel's open borders lunacy, and it's hard not to feel that Germany is finished unless things change drastically (and they won't, Merkel is set to win the election in September, and after that "family reunification" for the invaders she let in, will escalate and bring hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, more to Germany; it's our own version of what happened to Britain under New Labour). I also can't see German elites ever rebelling against the US, it would require a total change of mindset on their part...paradoxically German national self-abasement gets ever more extreme with increasing distance in time from the Nazi era (it's now reached the stage after all where Germany can be blackmailed and humiliated by a country like Turkey).

Um, Appalachian whites are actually some of the most ‘deracinated’ people in the country.

But they're a somewhat cohesive, distinct community, with roots in the country going back several centuries. Now I suppose this might be offensive to many Americans, but when I think about the US they, together with dwindling WASP types and the descendants of black slaves, are like the closest thing to being real Americans that I can think of, in the sense that the US would be literally inconceivable without them. Anyway, I just wondered why the US has all those weird racialist-nationalist movements unhinged from historical reality. Now of course one may regard nationalism in general as pretty dumb. But at least England, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Russia etc. have all existed in some form for a thousand years...no doubt there is a lot of myth-making involved here, but at least there's some historical reality as foundation when e.g. an English nationalist would celebrate King Alfred and his successors as the creators of England. White and black nationalists in the US by contrast create totally bizarre fantasy narratives. You can see this in the bizarre appropriation of ancient Egypt by black nationalists (instead of more or less authentic African survivals, which to my surprise seem to have existed in some parts of the US, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullah ), but also in someone like Richard Spencer when he makes delusional statements like "I want a white empire in the northern hemisphere with global power projection capabilities".(sorry, if that's a bit of an incoherent rant, it's just something that I found rather weird).

I mean, I wouldn’t overestimate the significance of “Hotep” nationalism, of the Afrocentrists who draw connexions to ancient Egypt, or for that matter of white nationalism. All of these are pretty marginal movements numbers-wise. White nationalism just got in the news recently because they were energized by Trump’s victory (we’ll see how long that lasts). Most Americans, black or white, to the extent they’re nationalistic at all, are captivated by the American civic-nationalist, Founding Fathers myth. Black people and liberal whites take a liberal line on the myth, and conservative whites take a conservative one. As I mentioned above, Malcolm X was one example of a Black intellectual who totally rejected the founding American myth, and was an ethnic nationalist. His ideology never converted all that many Black people though (for example, his goal for a separate African American political party totally failed).

“I want a white empire in the northern hemisphere with global power projection capabilities”.

I can’t express how creepy and disgusting this is, and it’s more evidence, if you needed it, that Richard Spencer is evil. He doesn’t consistently reject the “invade the world, invite the world” paradigm. He wants to invade the world without inviting them. That is to say, he wants to re–create the Age of Empire without re-creating the immigrant flows that it (unfortunately) led to.

I dislike mass migration movements in general (there are exceptions) because I want to protect the freedom of small ethnic and national communities to be themselves, and because that depends both on the ability to exclude and the ability to control people leaving. Empires are totally incompatible with that. Empires are dedicated to bigness and power, which inevitably means squashing the independence of smaller and weaker peoples, and also means losing your own distinct identity as you swallow up subject peoples. Most empires I can think of has been multicultural to some degree, which is a good reason for people who believe in a world of distinct tribes- as I do, certainly, and as I think you do- to be hostile to the idea of empires. Humility and modesty are virtues for nation states as much as they are for individuals.

In addition, as of course you’ve pointed out, ‘white’ is a garbage identity that doesn’t convey much of value, and that risks collapsing the distinction between different ‘white’ ethnic groups (as well as conjuring up fears from other people who have concerns, ill-founded or not, about falling victim to a ‘white’ empire). There are very significant differences- genetic, aesthetic, cultural, phenotypic- between Russians and Danes, and equally significant differences between either of them and Greeks. The ethnolinguistic differences between Danes and Germans, to pick two countries right next to each other, were enough for the whole Schleswig-Holstein question to become a thing. And the genetic population structure within Europe is significant enough that you can pick it out on genetic maps. Trying to synthesize some construct of a ‘white’ race is as unproductive and pernicious in my view as assuming that all’brown’, ‘yellow’, or ‘black’ people have a lot in common or belong to a common racial group. I don’t want to protect the identity of black people, or white people, or anything of that nature: I’d like a world in which Denmark can continue to be Danish, Czechia can continue to be Czech, Botswana can continue to be majority Tswana, Uganda for that matter can maintain its own cultural and ethnic makeup, and so forth.

I can’t express how creepy and disgusting this is, and it’s more evidence, if you needed it, that Richard Spencer is evil.

I'm not sure I'd call Spencer "evil", but I'd definitely agree that judging from his statements he's really into power worship. It's probably for the better that he doesn't have any real power himself and is unlikely to ever acquire any.

(1) Any true nationalist resurgence in the Greater European world will have to be broadbased because any singular uprisings can and will be crushed. (The US, the metropolis itself, is the only constituent element that can go it alone. *Maybe* a Greater Russia. But that's it).

(2) There are approximately one billion Europeans in the world. They will be far outnumbered by Africans half a century down the line, and there will probably be considerably more "smart fraction" Chinese people. Will small European nation-states, many of them riven by mounting ethnic tensions, be able to compete effectively in such a world?

Anyhow, while I don't necessarily support this Hyperborean Confederation idea, I can definitely see where Spencer is coming from.

Counter-counter-arguments.

1) Africans don’t think as a unified ethno-racial group any more than Europeans do. They unified in the past on exactly one issue (South Africa), that was a special case due to the history of colonialism in Africa, and even then the unity wasn’t total. I don’t know any other foreign policy issues where African countries are all unified. Certainly I haven’t heard much criticism from African countries about restrictive immigration policies in Denmark, for example. On the contrary they quite like Danish people because of their extensive foreign aid.

Individual European states will be able to compete exactly the same way individual Asian, Latin-American or African states do: through trade, economic productivity, diplomatic alliances, and so forth. There’s no inherent reason why African countries would be upset with restrictive immigration policies in a particular European country, if they feel like they’re benefiting from that country in other ways (e.g. through foreign aid, exchange of skilled personnel and technologies, and through trade).

2) Regarding China, actually China could serve as a useful ally for European countries that want to defect from the liberal world order with all its implications. So could Russia. The Czech Republic, which by some opinion polling is the most Euroskeptic country in Europe (or at least was a year ago), is so partly because they can *afford* to be Euroskeptic. They do so much trade with China that they could afford to see some of their trade with the EU dry up. The biggest threats to ethno-nationalists in Europe aren’t coming from China or Africa, or Russia: they’re coming from liberals in their own countries, and from the EU. Better relations with China could serve as a sort of counterweight to the EU, at least down the road when China is the world’s largest economy.

3) As I noted to German Reader, trying to synthesize / construct a ‘white’ race loses out on all of the interesting distinction in genetics, physical phenotype, culture and history that makes European countries what they are. I don’t want to see Denmark and Germany folded together into some kind of trans-ethnic confederation, much less Germany and Poland, and much much less America and Russia.

4) Anyway, this whole ‘we must unite to keep from being overpowered by bigger neighbors’ is exactly the same poor logic that has justified many empires through history, including the EU and NATO. (And yes I know you said you don’t support it). The basic flaw in the logic is that very often, the very act of uniting inspires fear among your opponents and draws into being the very kind of opposition and hostility that you were afraid of in the first place. Look at the way European nationalists have already suffered by association with Trump for example. Precisely because they’re small and weak countries, Czech and Danish ethnic nationalism don’t really scare people that much. The prospect of a global alliance of white people however is going to scare people very much, for many reasons, some of them good. (Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans were never imperialistic in Africa, for example: some other subgroups of ‘white people’ certainly were. And Black people in America probably couldn’t care less about nationalists in small European countries, but for good reason they are going to fear the concept of ‘white power’ quite a bit).

Eliding distinctions between European nations in the service of forming an empire or confederation is not just going to sacrifice individual national ethnicities and cultures (which would be bad enough), but by forming a powerful bloc it will also promote fear and oppositions among people elsewhere in the world and will ultimately make you weaker. I have a better solution: let England be English, Poland be Polish, Austria be Austrian, Russia be Russian, and so forth.

I don't know what you all are talking about here. That global alliance (minus Russia) does already exist, and is called NATO. (Actually, if informal etc. members are also added, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, perhaps even Taiwan, maybe Singapore could also be added. And some more, depending on the context. So it's a fairly large alliance.) If "an alliance of white people" would be scary, it certainly wouldn't be much scarier than what we have now. That was my point somewhere at the beginning of the thread.

There’s no inherent reason why African countries would be upset with restrictive immigration policies in a particular European country,

I don't know about that, it's obviously not a topic really studied, but it wouldn't surprise me if many Africans actually do feel good about their increasing share of world population and their increasing presence in many parts of the world, especially Europe...it's not like racial sentiments of that kind are unimaginable. Keeping up migration pressure also gives Africans a means to blackmail Europe (plus the economic benefit of remittances by migrants), to exert power over Europeans, and that must be an exhilarating feeling given the tendency of quite a few Africans to blame the continent's ills on colonialism.Admittedly that's anecdotal, but I can't recall ever having read about some African intellectual stating that Europeans have a legitimate interest in preventing African mass immigration to Europe...whereas it would be no problem to find many stating things like "Africa can't be a prison for Africans, global freedom of movement!". I had the misfortune of once sitting through the lecture of one such type (from Cameroon iirc) who basically blasted his audience for "racism" with a lot of postcolonial jargon ("black Atlantic" - one more piece of evidence for the pernicious influence of the Anglosphere on continental Europe) and railed against the (non-existent) "Fortress Europe". Of course he was enthusiastically lauded by the professor who had invited him, and the cucked Germans in the audience all clapped (I didn't, but then I may be atypical in this regard).

1) Africans don't think as a unified ethno-racial group any more than Europeans do. They unified in the past on exactly one issue (South Africa), that was a special case due to the history of colonialism in Africa, and even then the unity wasn't total. I don't know any other foreign policy issues where African countries are all unified. Certainly I haven't heard much criticism from African countries about restrictive immigration policies in Denmark, for example. On the contrary they quite like Danish people because of their extensive foreign aid.

Individual European states will be able to compete exactly the same way individual Asian, Latin-American or African states do: through trade, economic productivity, diplomatic alliances, and so forth. There's no inherent reason why African countries would be upset with restrictive immigration policies in a particular European country, if they feel like they're benefiting from that country in other ways (e.g. through foreign aid, exchange of skilled personnel and technologies, and through trade).

2) Regarding China, actually China could serve as a useful ally for European countries that want to defect from the liberal world order with all its implications. So could Russia. The Czech Republic, which by some opinion polling is the most Euroskeptic country in Europe (or at least was a year ago), is so partly because they can *afford* to be Euroskeptic. They do so much trade with China that they could afford to see some of their trade with the EU dry up. The biggest threats to ethno-nationalists in Europe aren't coming from China or Africa, or Russia: they're coming from liberals in their own countries, and from the EU. Better relations with China could serve as a sort of counterweight to the EU, at least down the road when China is the world's largest economy.

3) As I noted to German Reader, trying to synthesize / construct a 'white' race loses out on all of the interesting distinction in genetics, physical phenotype, culture and history that makes European countries what they are. I don't want to see Denmark and Germany folded together into some kind of trans-ethnic confederation, much less Germany and Poland, and much much less America and Russia.

4) Anyway, this whole 'we must unite to keep from being overpowered by bigger neighbors' is exactly the same poor logic that has justified many empires through history, including the EU and NATO. (And yes I know you said you don't support it). The basic flaw in the logic is that very often, the very act of uniting inspires fear among your opponents and draws into being the very kind of opposition and hostility that you were afraid of in the first place. Look at the way European nationalists have already suffered by association with Trump for example. Precisely because they're small and weak countries, Czech and Danish ethnic nationalism don't really scare people that much. The prospect of a global alliance of white people however is going to scare people very much, for many reasons, some of them good. (Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans were never imperialistic in Africa, for example: some other subgroups of 'white people' certainly were. And Black people in America probably couldn't care less about nationalists in small European countries, but for good reason they are going to fear the concept of 'white power' quite a bit).

Eliding distinctions between European nations in the service of forming an empire or confederation is not just going to sacrifice individual national ethnicities and cultures (which would be bad enough), but by forming a powerful bloc it will also promote fear and oppositions among people elsewhere in the world and will ultimately make you weaker. I have a better solution: let England be English, Poland be Polish, Austria be Austrian, Russia be Russian, and so forth.

The prospect of a global alliance of white people

I don’t know what you all are talking about here. That global alliance (minus Russia) does already exist, and is called NATO. (Actually, if informal etc. members are also added, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, perhaps even Taiwan, maybe Singapore could also be added. And some more, depending on the context. So it’s a fairly large alliance.) If “an alliance of white people” would be scary, it certainly wouldn’t be much scarier than what we have now. That was my point somewhere at the beginning of the thread.

Unlike whites and Latinos, Black Americans think their life situation has gotten better since the 1960s.

Assuming this is even true, most blacks have a fantasy view of what their peoples' past was like. Oprah Winfrey said that 'millions' of blacks had been lynched. The average black probably imagines that in 1960 he could be randomly murdered by klansmen if he tried to cross the street.

The average black probably imagines that in 1960 he could be randomly murdered by klansmen if he tried to cross the street

Well, actually in 1960 the average black could have been murdered for inappropriate behavior towards a white person on the street, in the South, anyway. And in a few instances, no behavior at all was required.

And I 'could', in the bare sense, be murdered if I walked down the street too. However, a black person is many times more likely to be murdered for no good reason after the 'triumph' over racism.

Let's return to Oprah's belief that 'millions' of blacks were lynched.If we interpret her statement in the most minimal sense possible and cap it a 2,000,000, that's over 10,000 a year! (Assuming they think lynchings go back to revolution. If they have a more accurate impression of the historical phase of lynching we are talking 100,000s a year). If blacks think that, it's really no surprise they think things have improved.

I'm generally averse to 1985 analogies, but one I think does hold up is the way democratic regimes maintain legitimacy by propagating wildly exaggerated ideas of how bad things were in the past.

Let me respond to a couple more things you said in more detail, now I've had a day to think.

Thank you for the clarification: I was unaware that you really don't have a political program of any sorts. Even still though, regarding "not being on an ideological crusade here", of course it's your blog and you can talk, or not talk, about whatever you feel like. I'm grateful to you for providing a space for discourse, so I'm not inclined to try to suggest to you what to talk about. That said, if it were me, I would feel both an intellectual and to some extent a moral obligation to try to clarify my opinion on both where I agreed and where I disagreed with other ethnic nationalists of the present and the past, to offer some kind of indications as to why my ideas would avoid the worst evils associated with some ethnic nationalists in the past, and to express something about the limits beyond which ethnic nationalism ought not to go. I'm someone who, after all, has been tarred alternately as a communist, a fascist, and a theocrat, so I'm not unfamiliar with having to clarify my opinions and to express exactly what I agree with and what I disagree with about such regimes. Ethnic nationalism is probably the most significant political trend in the world right now, it is unquestionably going to shape the medium term future of much of Europe, and probably other parts of the world as well. To a great extent (in my view) I think it will do so for good, but it has great potential for evil as well. I think those of us who are sympathetic to the tiger that's been unleashed, at least to some extent, have the obligation to use our intellectual and moral influence to try to control it and to tame its worst potential for excesses, and to criticize it when it goes too far. Then again, that's just what I would do: you're free to make or not to make whatever statement you choose. I know you don't support things like Mr. Spencer's creepy Nazi-esque cosplay, nor his dream of making America a white people's homeland, nor the fantasies of some European tribalists about re-enacting the Spanish Reconquista and forcibly expelling all Muslims and Jews from Europe: neither do I.

On a more concrete note, regarding Red-Brown alliances, I don't think the case for their being hopeless in eastern Europe is as clear as you suggest. Let's take a few countries in order. And let me specify that when I say red-brown I mean *red* and *brown*, i.e. alliances between the far left and ethnonationalists, not liberals or the centre left.

Poland- there is no 'red' in Poland, so question doesn't apply.
Hungary - the one truly "Red" party is as reiner Tor says, electorally irrelevant, so it doesn't even matter. That said, Thurmer has gone on record as supporting Orban's immigration policy, so it's certainly possible.
Czech Republic- they have a significant 'Red' party but no significant 'Brown' party. This is probably because all the major parties are already quite tough on immigration, so they don't feel the need for one. That being said, the "Reds" have gone on record opposing the mass resettlement of migrants in the CR, as has the Social-Democratic president Zeman. So I think you could argue here that the Reds already have a shade of brown in them.
Russia- as you correctly point out, the KPRF and the LDPR disagree on a whole hell of a lot, and are not going to ally any time soon. That's fine though because the KPRF is already more critical of immigration than Putin is. E.g. consider how they responded to the Uzbek nanny gate scandal, or the statement that they issued about how mass immigration was a product of capitalist-induced inequality between nations. Again I think we can say the Reds here already have a shade of brown.
Fico- probably the best example of the left in power pursuing a culturally conservative "Brown" agenda. He's the best example.
Romania- the Greater Romania party was a quite influential red brown alliance in the 1990s, but I suppose they're defunct today. That said, there are some politicians in the socialist party who are trying to form a "social-patriot" movement critical of immigration.
Bulgaria- the Socialists endorsed an anti-migration general for president last year. IIRC the Ataka party is also left wing on economics while being ultra-nationalist.

I don't think the case for red-brown alliances being hopeless, at least in the east, is as clear going forward as you think. In France, yes, you're right that they have shown to be hopeless, as MLP's failure demonstrates.

Um, Appalachian whites are actually some of the most 'deracinated' people in the country. In the sense that they're most likely to list their ethnic identity as simply "American", if you ask them. In New England or the Upper Midwest, white people much more commonly will self-describe as Polish, Slovak, Portuguese, German, Irish, etc..

I realize a lot of Europeans find it weird for a person who speaks no Polish, whose family have lived in America for three generations, etc.. to self-describe as 'Polish', but that's typically how people in the northeast and rust belt describe themselves. In Appalachia and the South, people are more likely to self describe as "American" or "White". Which actually seems weirder to me, since neither of these is actually an ethnic identity.

I mean, I wouldn't overestimate the significance of "Hotep" nationalism, of the Afrocentrists who draw connexions to ancient Egypt, or for that matter of white nationalism. All of these are pretty marginal movements numbers-wise. White nationalism just got in the news recently because they were energized by Trump's victory (we'll see how long that lasts). Most Americans, black or white, to the extent they're nationalistic at all, are captivated by the American civic-nationalist, Founding Fathers myth. Black people and liberal whites take a liberal line on the myth, and conservative whites take a conservative one. As I mentioned above, Malcolm X was one example of a Black intellectual who totally rejected the founding American myth, and was an ethnic nationalist. His ideology never converted all that many Black people though (for example, his goal for a separate African American political party totally failed).

“I want a white empire in the northern hemisphere with global power projection capabilities”.

I can't express how creepy and disgusting this is, and it's more evidence, if you needed it, that Richard Spencer is evil. He doesn't consistently reject the "invade the world, invite the world" paradigm. He wants to invade the world without inviting them. That is to say, he wants to re--create the Age of Empire without re-creating the immigrant flows that it (unfortunately) led to.

I dislike mass migration movements in general (there are exceptions) because I want to protect the freedom of small ethnic and national communities to be themselves, and because that depends both on the ability to exclude and the ability to control people leaving. Empires are totally incompatible with that. Empires are dedicated to bigness and power, which inevitably means squashing the independence of smaller and weaker peoples, and also means losing your own distinct identity as you swallow up subject peoples. Most empires I can think of has been multicultural to some degree, which is a good reason for people who believe in a world of distinct tribes- as I do, certainly, and as I think you do- to be hostile to the idea of empires. Humility and modesty are virtues for nation states as much as they are for individuals.

In addition, as of course you've pointed out, 'white' is a garbage identity that doesn't convey much of value, and that risks collapsing the distinction between different 'white' ethnic groups (as well as conjuring up fears from other people who have concerns, ill-founded or not, about falling victim to a 'white' empire). There are very significant differences- genetic, aesthetic, cultural, phenotypic- between Russians and Danes, and equally significant differences between either of them and Greeks. The ethnolinguistic differences between Danes and Germans, to pick two countries right next to each other, were enough for the whole Schleswig-Holstein question to become a thing. And the genetic population structure within Europe is significant enough that you can pick it out on genetic maps. Trying to synthesize some construct of a 'white' race is as unproductive and pernicious in my view as assuming that all'brown', 'yellow', or 'black' people have a lot in common or belong to a common racial group. I don't want to protect the identity of black people, or white people, or anything of that nature: I'd like a world in which Denmark can continue to be Danish, Czechia can continue to be Czech, Botswana can continue to be majority Tswana, Uganda for that matter can maintain its own cultural and ethnic makeup, and so forth.

I don’t want to protect the identity of black people, or white people, or anything of that nature:

You want to freeze-frame existing identities in the face of the fact that ethnicities and identities have been coming and going since HSS arrived on the scene.

Needed to be said. Human ethnicities are a bit like their languages - always in flux; the English language cannot be what it is without the Norman invasion.

In the classic sci-fi novel Dune, one of the themes is an idea that once in a while humans go through cataclysmic wars and upheavals that overturn the prevailing order - and all this is nothing we can prevent because it is actually (at its core) the need for human genetic admixing to prevent stagnation. Interesting theory whether one agrees with it or not.

Doing an objective study of history one may come to this conclusion - there are no such things as borders, unless one has the ability and wherewithal to defend them. Now Africans want to settle in Europe and before, Europeans wanted to settle in Africa...que sera sera...

You are absolutely correct about older British attitudes towards the US. For a prominent exemplar consider the great British politician and patriot Enoch Powell. His recognition of the US as fundamentally a hostile rival power, albeit an ally of convenience, and of Americans as foreigners, was nothing particularly unusual in elite circles when he was growing up in the interwar years.

What changed was the status of Britain and the increasingly Americanised nature, interests and needs of the elites who rule Britain, and although those changes were under way in the interwar years, it was WW2 which administered the coup de grace to Britain as a global peer rival of the US and turned us into a lower level state that faced the choice of satellite or destruction.

But many, as you describe, still had attitudes formed in the previous period, when the US was a rival power. Those people were brutally side-lined like Powell, or just replaced over time by people of younger generations who were indoctrinated into seeing the US as the fount of all that's good and cool. This served the purposes of the elites who set the post-WW2 media and political agendas, many of whom were either American themselves or had substantial family, business or work interests in the US. The exceptions were those loyal to the hard left who tended to align themselves with the Soviet or non-aligned states in world affairs and saw the US as an ideological threat, but that group were comprehensively defeated in the 1980s.

So it's partly a change in the underlying realities, and partly simple indoctrination, that explains the dramatic change in attitudes. But there is still quite a lot of healthy anti-American national self-respect around, it's just not often openly expressed and usually coded as anti-capitalism.

But anyway, Germany isn’t necessarily that different in this regard…it’s fairly Americanized as well in some parts, and unthinking Atlanticism is the default setting for political and media elites.

I think that will likely change when the economic basics change. As I noted, the US still has its post-WW2 control of the main levers and institutions of global economic power, but that cannot last forever in the face of US relative decline, and certainly the Chinese and Russians are working to provide mechanisms to evade and escape that control. So far the US elites have managed to postpone the inevitable, but the pressure will only build higher and higher as the US becomes ever less central to the lives of people around the world. Eventually it will break, and then the German elites (as with many others around the world) will see their interests as lying elsewhere. This process has already started in east Asia.

Thank you four your reply; it confirms my impression of Britain’s post-war development…though I still don’t fully understand the process (maybe my father’s youth in 1950s and 1960s Lancashire was atypical, but he doesn’t recall many people in love with the US as seems to be so common in today’s UK…instead quite a few very right-wing nationalists, and left-wingers who admired the Soviet Union).
Regarding Germany, I think its prospects are extremely bleak long-term…it may look dominant now, but a lot of that is built on feet of clay in my opinion. There are many fields of technology in which Germany isn’t relevant at all and infrastructure is decaying. The main problem of course is the extremely low birth rate; couple that with Merkel’s open borders lunacy, and it’s hard not to feel that Germany is finished unless things change drastically (and they won’t, Merkel is set to win the election in September, and after that “family reunification” for the invaders she let in, will escalate and bring hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, more to Germany; it’s our own version of what happened to Britain under New Labour). I also can’t see German elites ever rebelling against the US, it would require a total change of mindset on their part…paradoxically German national self-abasement gets ever more extreme with increasing distance in time from the Nazi era (it’s now reached the stage after all where Germany can be blackmailed and humiliated by a country like Turkey).

I mean, I wouldn't overestimate the significance of "Hotep" nationalism, of the Afrocentrists who draw connexions to ancient Egypt, or for that matter of white nationalism. All of these are pretty marginal movements numbers-wise. White nationalism just got in the news recently because they were energized by Trump's victory (we'll see how long that lasts). Most Americans, black or white, to the extent they're nationalistic at all, are captivated by the American civic-nationalist, Founding Fathers myth. Black people and liberal whites take a liberal line on the myth, and conservative whites take a conservative one. As I mentioned above, Malcolm X was one example of a Black intellectual who totally rejected the founding American myth, and was an ethnic nationalist. His ideology never converted all that many Black people though (for example, his goal for a separate African American political party totally failed).

“I want a white empire in the northern hemisphere with global power projection capabilities”.

I can't express how creepy and disgusting this is, and it's more evidence, if you needed it, that Richard Spencer is evil. He doesn't consistently reject the "invade the world, invite the world" paradigm. He wants to invade the world without inviting them. That is to say, he wants to re--create the Age of Empire without re-creating the immigrant flows that it (unfortunately) led to.

I dislike mass migration movements in general (there are exceptions) because I want to protect the freedom of small ethnic and national communities to be themselves, and because that depends both on the ability to exclude and the ability to control people leaving. Empires are totally incompatible with that. Empires are dedicated to bigness and power, which inevitably means squashing the independence of smaller and weaker peoples, and also means losing your own distinct identity as you swallow up subject peoples. Most empires I can think of has been multicultural to some degree, which is a good reason for people who believe in a world of distinct tribes- as I do, certainly, and as I think you do- to be hostile to the idea of empires. Humility and modesty are virtues for nation states as much as they are for individuals.

In addition, as of course you've pointed out, 'white' is a garbage identity that doesn't convey much of value, and that risks collapsing the distinction between different 'white' ethnic groups (as well as conjuring up fears from other people who have concerns, ill-founded or not, about falling victim to a 'white' empire). There are very significant differences- genetic, aesthetic, cultural, phenotypic- between Russians and Danes, and equally significant differences between either of them and Greeks. The ethnolinguistic differences between Danes and Germans, to pick two countries right next to each other, were enough for the whole Schleswig-Holstein question to become a thing. And the genetic population structure within Europe is significant enough that you can pick it out on genetic maps. Trying to synthesize some construct of a 'white' race is as unproductive and pernicious in my view as assuming that all'brown', 'yellow', or 'black' people have a lot in common or belong to a common racial group. I don't want to protect the identity of black people, or white people, or anything of that nature: I'd like a world in which Denmark can continue to be Danish, Czechia can continue to be Czech, Botswana can continue to be majority Tswana, Uganda for that matter can maintain its own cultural and ethnic makeup, and so forth.

I can’t express how creepy and disgusting this is, and it’s more evidence, if you needed it, that Richard Spencer is evil.

I’m not sure I’d call Spencer “evil”, but I’d definitely agree that judging from his statements he’s really into power worship. It’s probably for the better that he doesn’t have any real power himself and is unlikely to ever acquire any.

1) Africans don't think as a unified ethno-racial group any more than Europeans do. They unified in the past on exactly one issue (South Africa), that was a special case due to the history of colonialism in Africa, and even then the unity wasn't total. I don't know any other foreign policy issues where African countries are all unified. Certainly I haven't heard much criticism from African countries about restrictive immigration policies in Denmark, for example. On the contrary they quite like Danish people because of their extensive foreign aid.

Individual European states will be able to compete exactly the same way individual Asian, Latin-American or African states do: through trade, economic productivity, diplomatic alliances, and so forth. There's no inherent reason why African countries would be upset with restrictive immigration policies in a particular European country, if they feel like they're benefiting from that country in other ways (e.g. through foreign aid, exchange of skilled personnel and technologies, and through trade).

2) Regarding China, actually China could serve as a useful ally for European countries that want to defect from the liberal world order with all its implications. So could Russia. The Czech Republic, which by some opinion polling is the most Euroskeptic country in Europe (or at least was a year ago), is so partly because they can *afford* to be Euroskeptic. They do so much trade with China that they could afford to see some of their trade with the EU dry up. The biggest threats to ethno-nationalists in Europe aren't coming from China or Africa, or Russia: they're coming from liberals in their own countries, and from the EU. Better relations with China could serve as a sort of counterweight to the EU, at least down the road when China is the world's largest economy.

3) As I noted to German Reader, trying to synthesize / construct a 'white' race loses out on all of the interesting distinction in genetics, physical phenotype, culture and history that makes European countries what they are. I don't want to see Denmark and Germany folded together into some kind of trans-ethnic confederation, much less Germany and Poland, and much much less America and Russia.

4) Anyway, this whole 'we must unite to keep from being overpowered by bigger neighbors' is exactly the same poor logic that has justified many empires through history, including the EU and NATO. (And yes I know you said you don't support it). The basic flaw in the logic is that very often, the very act of uniting inspires fear among your opponents and draws into being the very kind of opposition and hostility that you were afraid of in the first place. Look at the way European nationalists have already suffered by association with Trump for example. Precisely because they're small and weak countries, Czech and Danish ethnic nationalism don't really scare people that much. The prospect of a global alliance of white people however is going to scare people very much, for many reasons, some of them good. (Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans were never imperialistic in Africa, for example: some other subgroups of 'white people' certainly were. And Black people in America probably couldn't care less about nationalists in small European countries, but for good reason they are going to fear the concept of 'white power' quite a bit).

Eliding distinctions between European nations in the service of forming an empire or confederation is not just going to sacrifice individual national ethnicities and cultures (which would be bad enough), but by forming a powerful bloc it will also promote fear and oppositions among people elsewhere in the world and will ultimately make you weaker. I have a better solution: let England be English, Poland be Polish, Austria be Austrian, Russia be Russian, and so forth.

There’s no inherent reason why African countries would be upset with restrictive immigration policies in a particular European country,

I don’t know about that, it’s obviously not a topic really studied, but it wouldn’t surprise me if many Africans actually do feel good about their increasing share of world population and their increasing presence in many parts of the world, especially Europe…it’s not like racial sentiments of that kind are unimaginable. Keeping up migration pressure also gives Africans a means to blackmail Europe (plus the economic benefit of remittances by migrants), to exert power over Europeans, and that must be an exhilarating feeling given the tendency of quite a few Africans to blame the continent’s ills on colonialism.
Admittedly that’s anecdotal, but I can’t recall ever having read about some African intellectual stating that Europeans have a legitimate interest in preventing African mass immigration to Europe…whereas it would be no problem to find many stating things like “Africa can’t be a prison for Africans, global freedom of movement!”. I had the misfortune of once sitting through the lecture of one such type (from Cameroon iirc) who basically blasted his audience for “racism” with a lot of postcolonial jargon (“black Atlantic” – one more piece of evidence for the pernicious influence of the Anglosphere on continental Europe) and railed against the (non-existent) “Fortress Europe”. Of course he was enthusiastically lauded by the professor who had invited him, and the cucked Germans in the audience all clapped (I didn’t, but then I may be atypical in this regard).

I don’t know about that, it’s obviously not a topic really studied, but it wouldn’t surprise me if many Africans actually do feel good about their increasing share of world population and their increasing presence in many parts of the world, especially Europe…it’s not like racial sentiments of that kind are unimaginable.

Oh they're not unimaginable, and yes, I'm sure at some level many Africans do feel good that Africa is an increasing share of the world population. In practice however, most Africans (just like most Europeans) think in terms of particular ethnic groups, not in terms of 'race'. The idea of a unified black race doesn't really make much than a unified white race, and there are plenty of ethnic tensions within Africa just as there are within other parts of the world. The idea of an 'African union" has been mostly a bust.

I'm sure there are are Africans who get very upset by "fortress Europe", and I'd guess you find them more among educated elites. (My three years in Africa was spent mostly living among peasants, not among these sorts of folks). In the main though, African people tend to be among the most skeptical in the world of mass immigration into their own countries. Audacious Epigone posted on that a couple years ago, from the GSS, but I can't look for it right now. It's not hard to make the case in that context, that consistency should mean they extent the same right to Europeans. Also, in my experience, the most un-PC / pro-HBD remarks I've ever heard came from people I lived around in Africa. I think that the slice of Africans who fall in lock-step line with PC / liberal talking points is probably very small, albeit an elite one.

As far as elites go, it's worth pointing out that the "why don't you give us more foreign aid and especially family planning aid, and that way you won't have as many migrants" compromise was suggested to Angela Merkel by the president of Niger. She declined, becase of course she did.

I don’t want to protect the identity of black people, or white people, or anything of that nature:

You want to freeze-frame existing identities in the face of the fact that ethnicities and identities have been coming and going since HSS arrived on the scene.

Needed to be said. Human ethnicities are a bit like their languages – always in flux; the English language cannot be what it is without the Norman invasion.

In the classic sci-fi novel Dune, one of the themes is an idea that once in a while humans go through cataclysmic wars and upheavals that overturn the prevailing order – and all this is nothing we can prevent because it is actually (at its core) the need for human genetic admixing to prevent stagnation. Interesting theory whether one agrees with it or not.

Doing an objective study of history one may come to this conclusion – there are no such things as borders, unless one has the ability and wherewithal to defend them. Now Africans want to settle in Europe and before, Europeans wanted to settle in Africa…que sera sera…

I don't think any of us here, certainly not me, is arguing for no immigration, genetic admixing, refugees, etc.. I think the rate right now is too high. I like the existence of human phenotypic, physiological and cultural diversity, and as we all know, diversity depends on the existence of some barriers to migration. As I've said in the past, I don't want the Andamanese who are my distant genetic relatives to disappear from the human family (Ancient South Indians, the racial group to which they belonged has more or less disappeared as a distinct group, although they contribute about 70% of the genetic makeup of southern India), and I don't want phenotypic traits like blue and green eyes, blonde hair, etc.. to disappear either. Yes, change is a constant of human history, that doesn't inherently tell us whether at any given time a particular change ought to be resisted or accelerated.

It's sort of true, and sort of not true, that "there are no such things as borders, unless one has the ability and wherewithal to defend them". Even in the absence of borders, if it wasn't for large economic disparities between nations, migration would happen at a much lower level.

Needed to be said. Human ethnicities are a bit like their languages - always in flux; the English language cannot be what it is without the Norman invasion.

In the classic sci-fi novel Dune, one of the themes is an idea that once in a while humans go through cataclysmic wars and upheavals that overturn the prevailing order - and all this is nothing we can prevent because it is actually (at its core) the need for human genetic admixing to prevent stagnation. Interesting theory whether one agrees with it or not.

Doing an objective study of history one may come to this conclusion - there are no such things as borders, unless one has the ability and wherewithal to defend them. Now Africans want to settle in Europe and before, Europeans wanted to settle in Africa...que sera sera...

Now...where did those Hittites go? Can find those darn guys anywhere.

Peace.

Admixture is the biological reality.

History and politics is the story of attachment to one particular strain and the efforts to keep it and do away with others.

The average black probably imagines that in 1960 he could be randomly murdered by klansmen if he tried to cross the street

Well, actually in 1960 the average black could have been murdered for inappropriate behavior towards a white person on the street, in the South, anyway. And in a few instances, no behavior at all was required.

And I ‘could’, in the bare sense, be murdered if I walked down the street too. However, a black person is many times more likely to be murdered for no good reason after the ‘triumph’ over racism.

Let’s return to Oprah’s belief that ‘millions’ of blacks were lynched.If we interpret her statement in the most minimal sense possible and cap it a 2,000,000, that’s over 10,000 a year! (Assuming they think lynchings go back to revolution. If they have a more accurate impression of the historical phase of lynching we are talking 100,000s a year). If blacks think that, it’s really no surprise they think things have improved.

I’m generally averse to 1985 analogies, but one I think does hold up is the way democratic regimes maintain legitimacy by propagating wildly exaggerated ideas of how bad things were in the past.

I am not defending Oprah's claims. I was pointing out the factual incorrectness of your assertion.

In the 1960's, in the South, a black person had a higher risk of being killed at random by white people simply because they were black than they do today in 2017. That has little to do with blacks killing blacks in Chicago or Baltimore today. (Although if we wanted to work at it we could speculate about the reasons for the northward migration, segregation in the north, etc., but that is above my pay grade.)

You need to consider that in Syria the high-IQ groups were part of or at least supported the Assad government: weird religious sects (Alawites, the Druze), Christians, and urban Sunni elites. These will be mostly chased out or killed under any kind of Sunni fundamentalist regime.

The fact that even many of the dumb Sunni masses will also flee the paradise they created and thus swell the migrant populations already here in Europe will be a nice bonus.

But again, we've already assumed that one of the Sunni fundamentalist rebel groups will be able to destroy the rest and create some semblance of order. Unlikely. I'd bet on a Libya style continuing civil war.

Your points are all valid, and, for what it’s worth, I think its undeniable that everything would have been much better had Assad successfully crushed the rebellion at the off. However, you’re living in a fantasy world if you think he can just retake power when over half of the country would like nothing better than to slaughter him with their bare hands.

So what should be done? I’ve already said the only sensible thing is for some other country to run it. Turkey would actually be a good choice. After all they have a much better claim to be rightful rulers of Syria than some Alawite-Socialist mob family who hooked up with the Soviets. Another similar option would be to have small reasonably ethnically homogeneous states under the suzerainty of a regional power.

But all the sane options are ruled out before the discussion begins because in the upside down world order FDR built borders must simultaneously be infinitely porous and inviolable at the same time. So we are left with insane options. Normies fantasize about a moderate opposition that doesn’t exist, Alt-Righters fantasize about a Cold War puppet junta somehow regaining the power it has already lost.

What is clear is that anything is better than civil war. The least bad option you can hope for is that something barely sane can be cobbled together out of the less extreme rebels and the old regime. Russia could facilitate this, but one of Putin’s worse features is his insistence on backing up leaders till the end, even when, as in Venezuela, they literally destroy their country.

But this has nothing to do with the case in hand, which is Trump’s strikes. Someone used chemical weapons. Trump bombed an airbase; now the more intelligent Ba’athists will do a better job of keeping a handle on the hotheads (a fortiori, if you are correct). Trump projected American power after 12 years of non-stop humiliation, he looked decisive, he picked up some free Arab popularity, and he sowed a bit of dissension between liberals and he far left. All that for no downside whatsoever. The closest thing I have got to a coherent explanation of why this is such a disaster is that it undermined your position in a Hungarian internet forum.

However, you’re living in a fantasy world if you think he can just retake power when over half of the country would like nothing better than to slaughter him with their bare hands.

Assad's regime controls the major population centres, with the majority of the population that's still remaining in Syria, so this doesn't seem like a correct assesment.
Obviously, it may well be that the regime won't reestablish full control over all the country...but so what? Certainly doesn't mean Turkey should somehow get to run the place. If anything, it would be far better to actually create a Kurdish statelet in Northern Syria, since Turkey ought to be punished anyway for its anti-Western insolence.

So we have the highest IQ faction, with the largest support, which also happens to be militarily the strongest, in control of almost all the major population centers, supported by troops and air force by Iran and Russia, and with a relatively sane government, as opposed to militarily weaker, less popular, and dumber head-chopper factions, in control of the desert and Idlib and Raqqa, and you think that it's insane to think that the former is the only force capable of governing... You top it off with the proposal that the whole thing be ruled by Erdogan, which quite contrary to Europe's interests, with all of Erdogan's blackmail, his open call for European Turks (and perhaps other Muslims?) to colonize the place and wage a war of the womb, etc. It is also totally unrealistic (if for nothing else, because neither the Russians nor the Iranians will accept it), unlike Assad's victory in the civil war, which bound to happen in the absence of American meddling. It is you who is living in a fantasy world, I'm afraid.

Trump projected American power after 12 years of non-stop humiliation, he looked decisive, he picked up some free Arab popularity, and he sowed a bit of dissension between liberals and he far left. All that for no downside whatsoever.

The military channel of communications was closed by the Russians, which makes an accidental conflict between the Russians and the Americans more likely. The Russians are shipping more anti-aircraft weapons to Syria (I bet you they are also supplying them with Russian personnel), which, you guessed it, makes a larger scale conflict more likely. The US also restarted its regime change policy, with all the implications (the deep state is now again allowed to send weapons to the rebels).

By the way, the Syrian Air Force is flying less sorties from that airport as a result of the attacks. They only have probably less than 100 aircraft capable of ground attacks, destroying just one is already more than 1% of the air force, and they destroyed several. The claim that they didn't weaken Assad is bogus.

So the rebels got stronger as a result, and the Syrian government weaker. The Russians probably also diverted some resources from the campaign to shore up the air defenses instead.

In any event, it made it more likely for him to be dragged into the war if another chemical attack happens. You might be aware that chemical attacks are happening quite regularly in Syria, perpetrated by the rebels. I guess orchestrating a false flag is not simple (especially not for clannish people who don't want to kill children belonging to their tribe, whatever the benefits), and it could've been an accident, but now he cannot just shrug his shoulders if another sad video emerges on teevee. Starting a major war (which he didn't do, but as I explained above, got closer to do) would destroy his presidency. That's a risk.

Starting military conflict is always risky, and best be avoided. Only people with no skin in the game don't understand that. I have a lot of skin in the game - Budapest was flooded with refugees just two summers ago. I want the civil war (and so both the excuse of the warmongers and the excuse for people wanting to force Hungary to accept refugees) to end. Assad is my best bet, and against it you can only offer the fantasy of Syria being colonized by Turks (I guess the Russians would just retreat, if they heard Gabriel on Unz Review proposed that it would be the best solution).

The closest thing I have got to a coherent explanation of why this is such a disaster is that it undermined your position in a Hungarian internet forum.

UKIP are in exactly the kind of turmoil you'd expect from a party that was created to achieve a concrete goal and suddenly (rather unexpectedly, if truth be told) achieved that goal.

It has to reorganise and find new goals. Whether it will do so successfully remains to be seen. If it reorganises itself as a successful advocate of the broader agenda of modern parties of national survival (halting immigration, restoring national sovereignty in the economic, political and military spheres) then it will do fine. If it does not, it will probably fade away and be replaced by someone else willing to represent those political trends.

Regardless, it's way too early yet to judge how it will go, only a few months after the Brexit triumph.

Yes, they did.

Risking tedium, no they didn’t.

UKIP are in exactly the kind of turmoil you’d expect from a party that was created to achieve a concrete goal and suddenly (rather unexpectedly, if truth be told) achieved that goal.

Not really. After the referendum UKIP were polling around 16%. What happened is that
(i) Nuttall flunked a winnable by-election by falsely claiming to have been at Hillsborough.
(ii) The party responded by launching a bizarre campaign to get rid of their only MP (who, I agree is a bit of a knob, though good on monetary issues).

But that’s really an epiphenomenon of a broader issue, which is that UKIP was never more than a collection of plonkers held together with sticky tape by Farage. The reason for this is simple. Any MP in a mainstream party who has been in parliament for a decade can simply walk into a position as ‘strategic adviser’ or ‘consultant’ at hundreds of companies. Nuttall will be lucky to get a job in a chip shop (that is unless it’s a chip shop whose business model involved being attacked by Antifa). Thus intelligent, ambitious people don’t join UKIP. I’ve tried to encourage at least half a dozen people to join UKIP and stand as MPs, but they are not interested. The same goes everywhere. Who is in Wilders’ party except Wilders? Why do all the famous people in the FN have the same surname?

These are the basic structural features that maintain the liberal democratic system.

In Wilders' case that's intentional...if I understand correctly, he wants to retain total control over the party...
But you actually raise a valid point, the violent actions by Antifa scum and the like - which is tolerated, and sometimes encouraged and supported by the establishment - is a real problem for political dissidents.

He could've killed way more children from al Qaeda affiliated families with way less fuss about it, just without chemical weapons.

They don't have a lot of sarin, and it was closely guarded by the top leadership even before 2013, when they had a lot more of it.

He could’ve killed way more children from al Qaeda affiliated families with way less fuss about it, just without chemical weapons.

It’s not mutually exclusive.

Several testimonies reported the practice of sexual torture used on male detainees. Men were routinely made to undress and remain naked. Several former detainees testified reported beatings of genitals, forced oral sex, electroshocks and cigarette burns to the anus in detention facilities . . . Several of the detainees were repeatedly threatened that they would be raped in front of their family and that their wives and daughters would also be raped. Testimonies were received from several men who stated they had been anally raped with batons and that they had witnessed the rape of boys. One man stated that he witnessed a 15-year-old boy being raped in front of his father. A 40-year-old man saw the rape of an 11-year-old boy by three security services officers

Really, we’re talking about a civil war that’s been going on for six years, fought by low IQ people who hate each other, and your argument amounts to ‘why would anyone do something so against his enlightened self interest?’. I have aspergers, but yeesh!

I think Alawites are higher IQ than the rest of the Syrian population. Could be much higher, I'm not sure if it's really reliably measured anywhere, but Greg Cochran wrote of Maronite Christians that they had an average IQ of roughly 100. I'm not sure that applies to Alawites, but they, too, have much lower levels of Sub-Saharan admixture, and lower levels of inbreeding. I'd be surprised if they were below 90, even if they are lower than 100. An average IQ of, say, 95, is well within the European range. Which means their talented tenth cannot be very much dumber than European elites. (OK, I guess European elites are dumb enough, but dumb in sophisticated ways, not dumb in dumb ways.)

Setting aside the averages of Alawites. Assad is an ophthalmologist. He was probably granted better grades because of his father, and ophthalmologists are not the sharpest knives in the medical drawer, but still... we're talking about a doctor. He needed to be interested in medicine long enough to sustain him through medical school, and it's probably one of the most difficult fields out there. He could've just opted for a political science degree or something like that. I bet you he's not low IQ, even if probably not genius level either.

His family might be totally dumb, of course, because, as we all know, genetics has nothing to do with intelligence, and having a couple sharp knives in the drawer (like Hafez and Bashar) tells us nothing about the sharpness of the other knives there, but I'd bet you the Assad family members are not significantly dumber than most Western politicians.

Oh, and Assad was said to have destroyed all of his sarin stocks years ago. You (and Trump, and the US Intelligence Community) are implying that he didn't destroy all of it. Possible. But I bet you dollars to donuts that this is among his best-kept secrets, for obvious reasons. Again, positing he's not suffering from Down syndrome or something, which he doesn't seem to. I'll also bet you dollars to donuts that this means that if he has any sarin left, it's under the control of a well-trusted and relatively smart family member. I cannot imagine this not to be the case. (There were reports in 2013 of regime officers complaining to each other that the high command didn't let them use chemical weapons, so even back then, when knowledge of the existence of chemical weapons was not a secret at all, and when they had more reason to think they might get away with it, and when their victory in the civil war was closer to certainty, the weapons were already relatively well guarded by the top leadership - as you would expect.)

So you're essentially accusing an Assad family member of not understanding how dangerous it is to use chemical weapons, stealing them from Assad, and using them in the dumbest possible way*, because, that's what they enjoy to do. MMA fighters or boxers do not always have the smarts to get a degree in medicine, but they usually are smart enough to understand some simple rules, which is why Tyson biting off Holyfield's ear made the headlines: it was unusual. OK, I guess you think the Assad family acted like Mike Tyson or something, because you think they are as dumb as Tyson, but I think you are wrong.

Besides that, there is the fact that the Trump administration is basing its knowledge on the assessment of the very same Intelligence Community which is out there to impeach him, which let the Iraqi WMD hysteria pass, which let the "Serbs are massacring tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Albanians in Kosovo" lie unchallenged, so which is not a very reliable source. The fact that the Intelligence Community has for years armed Syrian jihadists raises the possibility that they are playing politics here. I bet you they can lie in ways which are not, technically, lies. (I don't think they dare tell a direct lie to the POTUS, even if the POTUS in question is Trump. But they can use enough weasel language, if they wish to.)

Of course, there's the sarin thing. They are pretty strongly stating it was sarin (because sarin would make it much more likely that it was the Syrian government, whereas any fool could have chlorine, and I think chlorine is not even a forbidden chemical weapon), when the available evidence is not conclusive, to say the least, and all of it is coming from al-Qaeda and Erdogan.

And, to top it all off, the Russians and Syrians have invited an impartial international investigation to come to the airport from which the attack was alleged to emanate. It might've been a bluff. But then, nobody called this bluff. It cannot but raise my previous estimation that it was not this airport (which cannot but raise my suspicions that it wasn't the Syrian government at all).

Of course, smart people do dumb and risky things all the time. Occasionally they do dumb things in dumb ways, and things which are risky in dumb ways. So I'm not saying that it's impossible for Assad (or one of his minions) to have committed the chemical attack. I'm saying it's not very plausible based on evidence coming from al-Qaeda and Erdogan and the Intelligence Community, especially when all of their other statements (that it was sarin and that it came from that particular airport) are also in question, and they are totally uninterested in any impartial investigation.

*Chemical weapons can be used in a number of ways, like against fortified positions, against massed enemy troops preparing to attack (this is the way Aleppo's defenders have used them, I think), or strategic bombing of enemy cities. It was here allegedly used for the latter, but only one round was used, which is a dumb way to use a chemical weapon.

Your points are all valid, and, for what it's worth, I think its undeniable that everything would have been much better had Assad successfully crushed the rebellion at the off. However, you're living in a fantasy world if you think he can just retake power when over half of the country would like nothing better than to slaughter him with their bare hands.

So what should be done? I've already said the only sensible thing is for some other country to run it. Turkey would actually be a good choice. After all they have a much better claim to be rightful rulers of Syria than some Alawite-Socialist mob family who hooked up with the Soviets. Another similar option would be to have small reasonably ethnically homogeneous states under the suzerainty of a regional power.

But all the sane options are ruled out before the discussion begins because in the upside down world order FDR built borders must simultaneously be infinitely porous and inviolable at the same time. So we are left with insane options. Normies fantasize about a moderate opposition that doesn't exist, Alt-Righters fantasize about a Cold War puppet junta somehow regaining the power it has already lost.

What is clear is that anything is better than civil war. The least bad option you can hope for is that something barely sane can be cobbled together out of the less extreme rebels and the old regime. Russia could facilitate this, but one of Putin's worse features is his insistence on backing up leaders till the end, even when, as in Venezuela, they literally destroy their country.

But this has nothing to do with the case in hand, which is Trump's strikes. Someone used chemical weapons. Trump bombed an airbase; now the more intelligent Ba'athists will do a better job of keeping a handle on the hotheads (a fortiori, if you are correct). Trump projected American power after 12 years of non-stop humiliation, he looked decisive, he picked up some free Arab popularity, and he sowed a bit of dissension between liberals and he far left. All that for no downside whatsoever. The closest thing I have got to a coherent explanation of why this is such a disaster is that it undermined your position in a Hungarian internet forum.

However, you’re living in a fantasy world if you think he can just retake power when over half of the country would like nothing better than to slaughter him with their bare hands.

Assad’s regime controls the major population centres, with the majority of the population that’s still remaining in Syria, so this doesn’t seem like a correct assesment.
Obviously, it may well be that the regime won’t reestablish full control over all the country…but so what? Certainly doesn’t mean Turkey should somehow get to run the place. If anything, it would be far better to actually create a Kurdish statelet in Northern Syria, since Turkey ought to be punished anyway for its anti-Western insolence.

UKIP are in exactly the kind of turmoil you’d expect from a party that was created to achieve a concrete goal and suddenly (rather unexpectedly, if truth be told) achieved that goal.

Not really. After the referendum UKIP were polling around 16%. What happened is that
(i) Nuttall flunked a winnable by-election by falsely claiming to have been at Hillsborough.
(ii) The party responded by launching a bizarre campaign to get rid of their only MP (who, I agree is a bit of a knob, though good on monetary issues).

But that's really an epiphenomenon of a broader issue, which is that UKIP was never more than a collection of plonkers held together with sticky tape by Farage. The reason for this is simple. Any MP in a mainstream party who has been in parliament for a decade can simply walk into a position as 'strategic adviser' or 'consultant' at hundreds of companies. Nuttall will be lucky to get a job in a chip shop (that is unless it's a chip shop whose business model involved being attacked by Antifa). Thus intelligent, ambitious people don't join UKIP. I've tried to encourage at least half a dozen people to join UKIP and stand as MPs, but they are not interested. The same goes everywhere. Who is in Wilders' party except Wilders? Why do all the famous people in the FN have the same surname?

These are the basic structural features that maintain the liberal democratic system.

Who is in Wilders’ party except Wilders?

In Wilders’ case that’s intentional…if I understand correctly, he wants to retain total control over the party…
But you actually raise a valid point, the violent actions by Antifa scum and the like – which is tolerated, and sometimes encouraged and supported by the establishment – is a real problem for political dissidents.

Regularly practicing Catholics only gave 29% of their vote to Le Pen, while Protestants gave 33% of their vote to Le Pen.

Yet another refutation of Moldbug's "blame Calvinists" theory.

(i) Moldbug’s argument is solely about the genesis of left-liberalism in the Anglosphere. This is actually one of its main weaknesses, but it makes your argument impertinent.

(ii) Moldbug’s argument is that left-liberalism grew out of Dissenting Christianity. The political opinions of those who didn’t keep up is neither here nor there. Moldbug is obviously aware that evangelical Christianity is tied up with American conservatism and this actually plays an important role in his thought.

(iii) Back when I used to read about these things, I think I read that the geographical centers of the Hugeunots when on to be the heartlands of French socialism. Perhaps someone can confirm whether this is so or not.

Back when I used to read about these things, I think I read that the geographical centers of the Hugeunots when on to be the heartlands of French socialism.

French Protestants were more on the Left historically, perhaps as recently as the 50s when they seemed to be overrepresented in opposition movements to the Algerian War, or at least some of things happening there like torture. Since then they've pretty much been fully integrated into greater French society.

I recall (maybe early 2000s) reading an attempted analysis of Protestant voting patterns and political representation within each party. The older generation were a bit more to the Left - they were more likely to see themselves as a minority somewhat separate from the mainstream French nation - but not overwhelmingly so like the Jewish population, which French Protestants have historically been on good terms with. The young however were the same as Catholic French.

Protestants have voted for the the FN at the same rate as Catholic French since approximately the 1988 election.

The town of Orange, namesake of Protestant Europe's first family, has had Jacques Bompard as mayor since the 1990s. He was the first National Front mayor. The counter-Reformation arrived in Orange later than elsewhere, since it wasn't technically part of France until annexed by Louis XIV.

(i) Moldbug's argument is solely about the genesis of left-liberalism in the Anglosphere. This is actually one of its main weaknesses, but it makes your argument impertinent.

(ii) Moldbug's argument is that left-liberalism grew out of Dissenting Christianity. The political opinions of those who didn't keep up is neither here nor there. Moldbug is obviously aware that evangelical Christianity is tied up with American conservatism and this actually plays an important role in his thought.

(iii) Back when I used to read about these things, I think I read that the geographical centers of the Hugeunots when on to be the heartlands of French socialism. Perhaps someone can confirm whether this is so or not.

Back when I used to read about these things, I think I read that the geographical centers of the Hugeunots when on to be the heartlands of French socialism.

French Protestants were more on the Left historically, perhaps as recently as the 50s when they seemed to be overrepresented in opposition movements to the Algerian War, or at least some of things happening there like torture. Since then they’ve pretty much been fully integrated into greater French society.

I recall (maybe early 2000s) reading an attempted analysis of Protestant voting patterns and political representation within each party. The older generation were a bit more to the Left – they were more likely to see themselves as a minority somewhat separate from the mainstream French nation – but not overwhelmingly so like the Jewish population, which French Protestants have historically been on good terms with. The young however were the same as Catholic French.

Protestants have voted for the the FN at the same rate as Catholic French since approximately the 1988 election.

(i) Moldbug's argument is solely about the genesis of left-liberalism in the Anglosphere. This is actually one of its main weaknesses, but it makes your argument impertinent.

(ii) Moldbug's argument is that left-liberalism grew out of Dissenting Christianity. The political opinions of those who didn't keep up is neither here nor there. Moldbug is obviously aware that evangelical Christianity is tied up with American conservatism and this actually plays an important role in his thought.

(iii) Back when I used to read about these things, I think I read that the geographical centers of the Hugeunots when on to be the heartlands of French socialism. Perhaps someone can confirm whether this is so or not.

The town of Orange, namesake of Protestant Europe’s first family, has had Jacques Bompard as mayor since the 1990s. He was the first National Front mayor. The counter-Reformation arrived in Orange later than elsewhere, since it wasn’t technically part of France until annexed by Louis XIV.

And I 'could', in the bare sense, be murdered if I walked down the street too. However, a black person is many times more likely to be murdered for no good reason after the 'triumph' over racism.

Let's return to Oprah's belief that 'millions' of blacks were lynched.If we interpret her statement in the most minimal sense possible and cap it a 2,000,000, that's over 10,000 a year! (Assuming they think lynchings go back to revolution. If they have a more accurate impression of the historical phase of lynching we are talking 100,000s a year). If blacks think that, it's really no surprise they think things have improved.

I'm generally averse to 1985 analogies, but one I think does hold up is the way democratic regimes maintain legitimacy by propagating wildly exaggerated ideas of how bad things were in the past.

I am not defending Oprah’s claims. I was pointing out the factual incorrectness of your assertion.

In the 1960′s, in the South, a black person had a higher risk of being killed at random by white people simply because they were black than they do today in 2017. That has little to do with blacks killing blacks in Chicago or Baltimore today. (Although if we wanted to work at it we could speculate about the reasons for the northward migration, segregation in the north, etc., but that is above my pay grade.)

In the 1960′s, in the South, a black person had a higher risk of being killed at random by white people simply because they were black than they do today in 2017.

If I kidnapped you and locked you in my basement, then you would be at a much lower risk of getting run over by a car. I could lecture you on the dangers of road accidents for hours a day without ever telling a lie and no doubt, in time, you'd come to thank me for saving you from such a terrible fate.

That has little to do with blacks killing blacks in Chicago or Baltimore today.

Soviet peasants are no longer being pushed around by noblemen. This has nothing to do with them starving all the place. Totally separate issue.

However, you’re living in a fantasy world if you think he can just retake power when over half of the country would like nothing better than to slaughter him with their bare hands.

Assad's regime controls the major population centres, with the majority of the population that's still remaining in Syria, so this doesn't seem like a correct assesment.
Obviously, it may well be that the regime won't reestablish full control over all the country...but so what? Certainly doesn't mean Turkey should somehow get to run the place. If anything, it would be far better to actually create a Kurdish statelet in Northern Syria, since Turkey ought to be punished anyway for its anti-Western insolence.

since Turkey ought to be punished anyway for its anti-Western insolence.

Interesting sentiment coming from you.

Anyone know the pertinent section of the NATO charter that is controlling when one member attacks another?

I'm not in favour of attacking Turkey, but hey, come on, Turkey is an ally in name only by now anyway. Erdogan's quite openly hostile and using the whole refugee issue for blackmail, all the while sending his goons to intimidate dissidents in western countries (didn't his bodyguards just beat up demonstraters in Washington or something of the sort?). Admittedly, one should proceed with caution (I'm an unimportant commenter on an obscure blog...so I can afford extreme statements at times, obviously people in charge should behave more responsibly...)...but at some point there has to be a reaction to Turkey's persistent provocations.

since Turkey ought to be punished anyway for its anti-Western insolence.

Interesting sentiment coming from you.

Anyone know the pertinent section of the NATO charter that is controlling when one member attacks another?

I’m not in favour of attacking Turkey, but hey, come on, Turkey is an ally in name only by now anyway. Erdogan’s quite openly hostile and using the whole refugee issue for blackmail, all the while sending his goons to intimidate dissidents in western countries (didn’t his bodyguards just beat up demonstraters in Washington or something of the sort?). Admittedly, one should proceed with caution (I’m an unimportant commenter on an obscure blog…so I can afford extreme statements at times, obviously people in charge should behave more responsibly…)…but at some point there has to be a reaction to Turkey’s persistent provocations.

NATO was an effect of the Cold War and Turkey was an anomaly within the organization. There is no current need for NATO and certainly there is no need for Turkey to be a member now that the secularists are on the way out of power.

I'm not in favour of attacking Turkey, but hey, come on, Turkey is an ally in name only by now anyway. Erdogan's quite openly hostile and using the whole refugee issue for blackmail, all the while sending his goons to intimidate dissidents in western countries (didn't his bodyguards just beat up demonstraters in Washington or something of the sort?). Admittedly, one should proceed with caution (I'm an unimportant commenter on an obscure blog...so I can afford extreme statements at times, obviously people in charge should behave more responsibly...)...but at some point there has to be a reaction to Turkey's persistent provocations.

NATO was an effect of the Cold War and Turkey was an anomaly within the organization. There is no current need for NATO and certainly there is no need for Turkey to be a member now that the secularists are on the way out of power.

I'd argue Turkey's membership is actually potentially quite dangerous at this point...I don't think it's beyond Erdogan to try engineering a crisis between Russia and the West for his own Islamist pet projects (arguably the Turks already tried that when they shot down that Russian jet in late 2015). That's obviously not in the interests of Europe or the US. Still, it's admittedly hard to see what course should be taken...Turkey in its present state is a destabilizing factor in the region, but if it disintegrates into civil war or something of the sort, it will make matters even worse.

NATO was an effect of the Cold War and Turkey was an anomaly within the organization. There is no current need for NATO and certainly there is no need for Turkey to be a member now that the secularists are on the way out of power.

I’d argue Turkey’s membership is actually potentially quite dangerous at this point…I don’t think it’s beyond Erdogan to try engineering a crisis between Russia and the West for his own Islamist pet projects (arguably the Turks already tried that when they shot down that Russian jet in late 2015). That’s obviously not in the interests of Europe or the US. Still, it’s admittedly hard to see what course should be taken…Turkey in its present state is a destabilizing factor in the region, but if it disintegrates into civil war or something of the sort, it will make matters even worse.

I know very little about the internal situation in Turkey other than it is my impression that the secularists have been purged and Erdogan is riding the fundamentalist wave. I don't know how secure he is within the fundamentalist power. I do know that nothing can be ruled out when an authoritarian is trying to hold onto power. Too bad the Greeks petered out we could have turned them loose.

I'd argue Turkey's membership is actually potentially quite dangerous at this point...I don't think it's beyond Erdogan to try engineering a crisis between Russia and the West for his own Islamist pet projects (arguably the Turks already tried that when they shot down that Russian jet in late 2015). That's obviously not in the interests of Europe or the US. Still, it's admittedly hard to see what course should be taken...Turkey in its present state is a destabilizing factor in the region, but if it disintegrates into civil war or something of the sort, it will make matters even worse.

I know very little about the internal situation in Turkey other than it is my impression that the secularists have been purged and Erdogan is riding the fundamentalist wave. I don’t know how secure he is within the fundamentalist power. I do know that nothing can be ruled out when an authoritarian is trying to hold onto power. Too bad the Greeks petered out we could have turned them loose.

Well, I'm hardly an expert on Turkey (there's some other commenter on Unz, "Uebersetzer", who knows quite a lot about the internal situation there from first-hand experience, has written some interesting comments about it)...but clearly there are still a lot of people who are opposed to the re-Islamization of Turkey as advanced by Erdogan and his supporters...old-style Kemalists, secularists, and not least the Alevi who are fearful of the Sunni majority (not without reason, given that there were numerous acts of extreme violence against their community as recently as the 1970s-1990s; those divisions of course also extend to Turkish immigrant communities in Europe, e.g. my father's partner gives English lessons to a teenage Alevi girl, and that girl seems to hate Erdogan and apparently had Putin as a kind of hero when there were Russian-Turkish tensions). Erdogan barely won his referendum for constitutional change after all, and quite possibly there was fraud involved. So Turkey seems divided, and who knows what will happen? It's not like there isn't a tradition of political violence in the country (there was quite a lot of it in the 1970s if I understand correctly, with death squads by the Grey wolves and similiar outfits just killing their opponents).

I'd argue Turkey's membership is actually potentially quite dangerous at this point...I don't think it's beyond Erdogan to try engineering a crisis between Russia and the West for his own Islamist pet projects (arguably the Turks already tried that when they shot down that Russian jet in late 2015). That's obviously not in the interests of Europe or the US. Still, it's admittedly hard to see what course should be taken...Turkey in its present state is a destabilizing factor in the region, but if it disintegrates into civil war or something of the sort, it will make matters even worse.

I’d argue Turkey’s membership is actually potentially quite dangerous at this point…I don’t think it’s beyond Erdogan to try engineering a crisis between Russia and the West

He already tried to start a war with Israel and then backed down when Uncle Sam told him he’d be on his own. He’s a big talker but he knows that NATO wouldn’t bail him out against Russia.

The refugee crisis exists with or without Erdogan. Blaming him is weak sauce.

The refugee crisis exists with or without Erdogan. Blaming him is weak sauce.

I agree to some extent, he can only blackmail the Europeans because the Europeans with their foolish humanitarianism let themselves be blackmailed...they should just defend their borders themselves instead of outsourcing the job.
Don't know what's going on in Erdogan's head...frankly, I'm not sure the man isn't somewhat unhinged.

NATO was an effect of the Cold War and Turkey was an anomaly within the organization. There is no current need for NATO and certainly there is no need for Turkey to be a member now that the secularists are on the way out of power.

Right, it is not Turkey in NATO that is destabilizing, it is the existence of NATO itself.

I know very little about the internal situation in Turkey other than it is my impression that the secularists have been purged and Erdogan is riding the fundamentalist wave. I don't know how secure he is within the fundamentalist power. I do know that nothing can be ruled out when an authoritarian is trying to hold onto power. Too bad the Greeks petered out we could have turned them loose.

disintegrates into civil war or something of the sort.

Other than the Kurds what do you see?

Other than the Kurds what do you see?

Well, I’m hardly an expert on Turkey (there’s some other commenter on Unz, “Uebersetzer”, who knows quite a lot about the internal situation there from first-hand experience, has written some interesting comments about it)…but clearly there are still a lot of people who are opposed to the re-Islamization of Turkey as advanced by Erdogan and his supporters…old-style Kemalists, secularists, and not least the Alevi who are fearful of the Sunni majority (not without reason, given that there were numerous acts of extreme violence against their community as recently as the 1970s-1990s; those divisions of course also extend to Turkish immigrant communities in Europe, e.g. my father’s partner gives English lessons to a teenage Alevi girl, and that girl seems to hate Erdogan and apparently had Putin as a kind of hero when there were Russian-Turkish tensions). Erdogan barely won his referendum for constitutional change after all, and quite possibly there was fraud involved. So Turkey seems divided, and who knows what will happen? It’s not like there isn’t a tradition of political violence in the country (there was quite a lot of it in the 1970s if I understand correctly, with death squads by the Grey wolves and similiar outfits just killing their opponents).

I’d argue Turkey’s membership is actually potentially quite dangerous at this point…I don’t think it’s beyond Erdogan to try engineering a crisis between Russia and the West

He already tried to start a war with Israel and then backed down when Uncle Sam told him he'd be on his own. He's a big talker but he knows that NATO wouldn't bail him out against Russia.

The refugee crisis exists with or without Erdogan. Blaming him is weak sauce.

The refugee crisis exists with or without Erdogan. Blaming him is weak sauce.

I agree to some extent, he can only blackmail the Europeans because the Europeans with their foolish humanitarianism let themselves be blackmailed…they should just defend their borders themselves instead of outsourcing the job.
Don’t know what’s going on in Erdogan’s head…frankly, I’m not sure the man isn’t somewhat unhinged.

"No thanks, I don’t want all of us to become Americans, I’m sick of US influence as it is. I don’t want some stupid empire where we all have to speak English and be told by deracinated WN weirdoes like Spencer who we supposedly are.
I’m very much in favour of cooperation between European nations though."

German, but not white. That's a pretty small tribe.

Not sure how many allies you will find in Western Europe and the Scandinavian countries either.

I say this with particular sadness as a German-American, but the Germans’ suicidally low fertility rate will ensure that their “tribe” is a rapidly diminishing and eventually relatively insignificant and weak group.

To my German cousin: I understand your resentment of US and NATO warmongering, the baleful influence of what passes for popular culture in the USA these days, etc. But in light of the above, you will need us good & likeminded people from the USA and all the other help you can get.

But in light of the above, you will need us good & likeminded people from the USA and all the other help you can get.

Hey, don't get me wrong, it's not like I hate or despise Americans in general, I know you guys commenting here are mostly good, intelligent and educated people. I just have my doubts you'll manage to turn the US around again (but it's not like it's different in Europe...many Germans are dumb assholes and will vote for Merkel again; and as you correctly write, the birthrates are so pathetically low the nation is set on a course to extinction anyway).

I say this with particular sadness as a German-American, but the Germans' suicidally low fertility rate will ensure that their "tribe" is a rapidly diminishing and eventually relatively insignificant and weak group.

To my German cousin: I understand your resentment of US and NATO warmongering, the baleful influence of what passes for popular culture in the USA these days, etc. But in light of the above, you will need us good & likeminded people from the USA and all the other help you can get.

But in light of the above, you will need us good & likeminded people from the USA and all the other help you can get.

Hey, don’t get me wrong, it’s not like I hate or despise Americans in general, I know you guys commenting here are mostly good, intelligent and educated people. I just have my doubts you’ll manage to turn the US around again (but it’s not like it’s different in Europe…many Germans are dumb assholes and will vote for Merkel again; and as you correctly write, the birthrates are so pathetically low the nation is set on a course to extinction anyway).

the birthrates are so pathetically low the nation is set on a course to extinction anyway

why does Germany need more people? Where would you put another 10 million Germans? Actually, I can think of one place but the last time somebody had the same idea it didn't work out so well...

I just have my doubts you’ll manage to turn the US around again

1. We've already started
2. Even if we fail, the US will simply collapse into an ungovernable mess which might actually be even better. Without the US, there is no Globalism. The rights of women and gays will go back 100 years without the US to enforce Globalist Liberalism.

The beauty of being on the side of truth and justice is that even if you lose, you still win.

perhaps future historians, when drawing maps of, say, 1970s Europe, will draw all NATO countries with the same color, and calling them some kind of “nominally independent satellite states of the US”.

That would be the correct interpretation of the situation in the post-WW2 period (which we are only just emerging from now - big wars have big consequences). But for that kind of interpretation a lot probably depends on future outcomes. Historians drawing maps of the early Roman situation knew that the Latinate allies ended up being incorporated into the Roman empire, and that probably influenced their view of them.

Similarly if the outcome of the post-WW2 situation were to be the incorporation of the US's European satellite states into some bigger unit under longer term US control (de facto or de jure), then that would probably influence how the earlier period is viewed.

Most likely, though, we've now passed the high tide of US global power, and Europe (mainland at least) will probably escape US influence and become a German-dominated independent power centre. That's unless, of course, some other world event like the early C20th world wars manages (by chance or by intent) to hand them another period of global hegemony.

Sadly, I suspect there's now little chance of my own country escaping absorption into the US bloc longer term. Too many dual loyalty and outright treasonous people in our elites who don't see any difference between US interests and our national interests (if they see any national interests at all other than US ones, that is). There might have been a brief moment of opportunity to re-establish our national independence after 1991 if we'd pushed for the immediate dissolution of NATO, but by then we were ruled by traitors, not nationalists. The only issue in doubt was whether the pro-US traitors or the pro-EU traitors would sell us down the river faster and further.

Well put, sir. I’ll just note that the US government, NATO, the UN, the IMF, Hollywood, etc., are manifestly NOT serving the interests of us Americans, either. They’re not even trying to serve our interests, in fact.

Good Germans, good Americans, and normal people from other European countries are in a very similar boat and must get together against heartless globalism, endless warfare, warrantless surveillance, and mass immivasion / demographic replacement.

"we lacked the protection of a distinct language. It’s a famous quip that the US and Britain are “two countries divided by a common language”, but in reality that is one of the fundamental protections against external domination."

That's something I really don't understand, the bizarre affection many people in Britain today seem to have towards the US. I know from my personal family background that it wasn't always like this; I'm obviously quite thoroughly German and have spent all my life in Germany, but my father's English, so I have some insight from his recollections into Britain in the 1950s and 1960s. According to him there was a distinct sense among many that the US had humiliated Britain during the 1940s and 1950s, and done much to undermine independent British power. My grandfather certainly didn't have a positive opinion of the American troops he met in North Africa in 1942/43 (he thought them arrogant, with all their equipment and plentiful rations, while the British had so much less). Now those sentiments may have been very unfair to the US (after all alliance with it was necessary against the German threat), but they existed, and they can't have been totally atypical. But somehow Britain seems to have developed in a very different direction in the past 40 years or so...it baffles me how those bizarre "Anglosphere" concepts have gained so much traction. I wonder if that illusion will finally evaporate when Hispanics and Asians get ever more politically influential in the US (both groups seem to feel no special affection or reverence for Britain).
But anyway, Germany isn't necessarily that different in this regard...it's fairly Americanized as well in some parts, and unthinking Atlanticism is the default setting for political and media elites.

That’s something I really don’t understand, the bizarre affection many people in Britain today seem to have towards the US.

I haven’t lived in the UK for 15 years so take for what it’s worth, but in my 40+ years I’ve never noticed this “bizarre affection” – unless, of course, you are a typical leftist who thinks any ethnic connection between peoples is a “bizarre affection”.

I know British politicians tend to be American lickspittles but that’s obviously different from the people themselves, who don’t vote on foreign policy, so I’m wondering what you are referring to.

you are a typical leftist who thinks any ethnic connection between peoples is a “bizarre affection”.

What “ethnic connection” is there exactly between the US and Britain? Ok, might be like that with white southerners in the US who are to a large degree descended from British colonists. But the US has had lots of non-British groups in its population for a long time, some of them with quite strong anti-British attitudes (ok, the Germans were successfully crushed by Anglo-America during WW1 as a cultural entity, but that still leaves Zionist Jews and Irish nationalists). The majority of white Americans today is either not descended from British people or emphasizes other elements of their ancestry (if I understand correctly, British ancestry is massively undercounted when white Americans state their identity…which to me indicates that it’s just not seen as cool).
Of course there are Anglophile traditions in the US, and certainly some Americans at least have sincere affection for Britain as their mother country. But will all those Hispanics and all those Asians who will make up a large part of the US population/elites in the not too distant future have such feelings for Britain (because they’re such ardent admirers of Magna Carta, the rights of free-born Englishmen and all that)? I doubt it.
So sorry, I don’t get it. I could understand such attitudes with regard to Canada, Australia and New Zealand because they clearly belonged to a greater British identity not that long ago. But it seems misguided to me regarding the US, a coping mechanism for not having to face the truth about Britain’s decline. But that’s just my personal opinion of course and I’ve got little inclination to get into an unproductive argument about it.

We have no English, Irish, Scottish, or Welsh ancestry as far as we know, yet my grandparents and parents taught me that the Brits are naturally and rightly our friends, bound to us not just by genetic and cultural heritage like other white European (and Russian) people but also by our common language and principles for society and government.

They were right to teach me that. And we will teach our children the same thing about loyalty and affection for and solidarity with whatever real non-brainwashed non-suicidal white British people there are left in the UK.

But in light of the above, you will need us good & likeminded people from the USA and all the other help you can get.

Hey, don't get me wrong, it's not like I hate or despise Americans in general, I know you guys commenting here are mostly good, intelligent and educated people. I just have my doubts you'll manage to turn the US around again (but it's not like it's different in Europe...many Germans are dumb assholes and will vote for Merkel again; and as you correctly write, the birthrates are so pathetically low the nation is set on a course to extinction anyway).

the birthrates are so pathetically low the nation is set on a course to extinction anyway

why does Germany need more people? Where would you put another 10 million Germans? Actually, I can think of one place but the last time somebody had the same idea it didn’t work out so well…

I just have my doubts you’ll manage to turn the US around again

1. We’ve already started
2. Even if we fail, the US will simply collapse into an ungovernable mess which might actually be even better. Without the US, there is no Globalism. The rights of women and gays will go back 100 years without the US to enforce Globalist Liberalism.

The beauty of being on the side of truth and justice is that even if you lose, you still win.

why does Germany need more people? Where would you put another 10 million Germans?

I've never stated I wanted "more" Germans. Some controlled decline with a stabilization at lower levels would be best of course. However the birthrate is so low there will be probably significant problems with keeping a sufficient workforce around and financing the pensions system. Wouldn't be the end of the world either, but this isn't happening in a vacuum...there's intense migration pressure from the failed societies of the Islamic world and from Africa, and somehow it's become established wisdom that the solution to our demographic woes is in accepting migrants from there...which is bound to end in disaster imo.

1. We’ve already started

I don't know about that. It's not that I really understand what's going on in the US, but the whole spectacle around Trump's presidency and the attempts to overthrow him (at least that's what it looks like) is pretty disturbing in a way...doesn't look to me like the sort of people who comment here are "winning" in any way.

Greasy, what about when civil war and street-to-street, house-to-house fighting comes to Germany? Such a frightening scenario is not unlikely, even in the BETTER scenario (another plausible scenario is quiet submission and gradual disappearance of actual German people).

Numbers of people matter very much then.

Numbers of native German people also matter when voting and otherwise trying to structure, preserve, and improve one's society and culture in the face of a confident, aggressive, alien people in your midst.

Keep telling us that the population of Germany doesn't matter. But don't forget not to leave the house without growing that beard. And teach your daughter or granddaughter to shut her mouth and know her place like a good Muslim woman, because the Muslim immigrants certainly will if you let them.

Are we still on planet earth here? Whichever general made the order was trying to kill people he didn't like because its fun. Maybe he had some third cousin who was hacked to death by Al Nusra.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Magdeburg

And if they'd had some Sarin they could have had a real party.

Yeah, they’re just plain evil and thats why they use their gas to kill a few dozen kids for the lulz instead of to soften up a strongly fortified position to obtain a breakthrough of the line. Evil dictators always lose wars because of this kind of misallocation of assets.

the birthrates are so pathetically low the nation is set on a course to extinction anyway

why does Germany need more people? Where would you put another 10 million Germans? Actually, I can think of one place but the last time somebody had the same idea it didn't work out so well...

I just have my doubts you’ll manage to turn the US around again

1. We've already started
2. Even if we fail, the US will simply collapse into an ungovernable mess which might actually be even better. Without the US, there is no Globalism. The rights of women and gays will go back 100 years without the US to enforce Globalist Liberalism.

The beauty of being on the side of truth and justice is that even if you lose, you still win.

why does Germany need more people? Where would you put another 10 million Germans?

I’ve never stated I wanted “more” Germans. Some controlled decline with a stabilization at lower levels would be best of course. However the birthrate is so low there will be probably significant problems with keeping a sufficient workforce around and financing the pensions system. Wouldn’t be the end of the world either, but this isn’t happening in a vacuum…there’s intense migration pressure from the failed societies of the Islamic world and from Africa, and somehow it’s become established wisdom that the solution to our demographic woes is in accepting migrants from there…which is bound to end in disaster imo.

1. We’ve already started

I don’t know about that. It’s not that I really understand what’s going on in the US, but the whole spectacle around Trump’s presidency and the attempts to overthrow him (at least that’s what it looks like) is pretty disturbing in a way…doesn’t look to me like the sort of people who comment here are “winning” in any way.

The "established wisdom" is of course kind of silly, but it's not inevitable that it has to become established wisdom. There are societies (Japan, and eastern Europe) that have ultra-low fertility coupled with hostility to mass immigration, and they seem to have made their peace with population decline. As you say, population decline doesn't have to be a bad thing, and e.g. the Japanese seem to have decided they prefer it to being swamped by Filipinos.

No thanks, I don't want all of us to become Americans, I'm sick of US influence as it is. I don't want some stupid empire where we all have to speak English and be told by deracinated WN weirdoes like Spencer who we supposedly are.
I'm very much in favour of cooperation between European nations though.

Regularly practicing Catholics only gave 29% of their vote to Le Pen, while Protestants gave 33% of their vote to Le Pen.

Yet another refutation of Moldbug's "blame Calvinists" theory.

Catholics are more immune to racial theorizing. In the US the identity of being white was foreign to most Catholics. The process of breaking down citifies that destroyed ethnic communities changed that.

Every one of my parents and grandparents -- "Roman" Catholic all -- identified proudly and clearly as white European-descended people despite all being born in the USA. Never a question about it.

Other Catholics here might be more confused or deracinated / brainwashed, especially in the past few decades. They are then part of our existential problem -- as is the official Catholic Church and its immivasion agents (National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities, etc.).

That’s my impression also. It seems similar to India in that respect, with significant very-smart and very-stupid fractions. The country is also less than half Persian, with large nomadic/primitive minorities like Lurs, Baluchis, Kurds, Turkmen and others.

American culture and just their general behavior is very different from the UK, or Australia. Friends of mine have mentioned that in America, you are considered as ‘American’ once you have a passport; in Australia people are still much more likely to press ‘where are you [i]originally[/i] from?’
This attitude is changing fast though. I was out recently and asked someone obviously of African descent what country he was from, and several people around interpreted this simple question as ‘racist’, ‘he’s Australian!’ etc.

Friends of mine have mentioned that in America, you are considered as ‘American’ once you have a passport; in Australia people are still much more likely to press ‘where are you [i]originally[/i] from?’

No, it's very common to ask that question in America. Less so in the south and west, I think, but in the northeast and upper Midwest white people are usually quite conscious of their ethnic origin, and it's not an uncommon question to ask.

Cf. that Guardian article where they interviewed Trump voters in Macomb, Michigan (one of the counties that flipped from Obama in 2012 to Trump last year). The guy they interviewed said "I'm not white, I'm European American of Polish descent." That's not all that uncommon.

He could’ve killed way more children from al Qaeda affiliated families with way less fuss about it, just without chemical weapons.

It's not mutually exclusive.

Several testimonies reported the practice of sexual torture used on male detainees. Men were routinely made to undress and remain naked. Several former detainees testified reported beatings of genitals, forced oral sex, electroshocks and cigarette burns to the anus in detention facilities . . . Several of the detainees were repeatedly threatened that they would be raped in front of their family and that their wives and daughters would also be raped. Testimonies were received from several men who stated they had been anally raped with batons and that they had witnessed the rape of boys. One man stated that he witnessed a 15-year-old boy being raped in front of his father. A 40-year-old man saw the rape of an 11-year-old boy by three security services officers

Really, we're talking about a civil war that's been going on for six years, fought by low IQ people who hate each other, and your argument amounts to 'why would anyone do something so against his enlightened self interest?'. I have aspergers, but yeesh!

fought by low IQ people

I think Alawites are higher IQ than the rest of the Syrian population. Could be much higher, I’m not sure if it’s really reliably measured anywhere, but Greg Cochran wrote of Maronite Christians that they had an average IQ of roughly 100. I’m not sure that applies to Alawites, but they, too, have much lower levels of Sub-Saharan admixture, and lower levels of inbreeding. I’d be surprised if they were below 90, even if they are lower than 100. An average IQ of, say, 95, is well within the European range. Which means their talented tenth cannot be very much dumber than European elites. (OK, I guess European elites are dumb enough, but dumb in sophisticated ways, not dumb in dumb ways.)

Setting aside the averages of Alawites. Assad is an ophthalmologist. He was probably granted better grades because of his father, and ophthalmologists are not the sharpest knives in the medical drawer, but still… we’re talking about a doctor. He needed to be interested in medicine long enough to sustain him through medical school, and it’s probably one of the most difficult fields out there. He could’ve just opted for a political science degree or something like that. I bet you he’s not low IQ, even if probably not genius level either.

His family might be totally dumb, of course, because, as we all know, genetics has nothing to do with intelligence, and having a couple sharp knives in the drawer (like Hafez and Bashar) tells us nothing about the sharpness of the other knives there, but I’d bet you the Assad family members are not significantly dumber than most Western politicians.

Oh, and Assad was said to have destroyed all of his sarin stocks years ago. You (and Trump, and the US Intelligence Community) are implying that he didn’t destroy all of it. Possible. But I bet you dollars to donuts that this is among his best-kept secrets, for obvious reasons. Again, positing he’s not suffering from Down syndrome or something, which he doesn’t seem to. I’ll also bet you dollars to donuts that this means that if he has any sarin left, it’s under the control of a well-trusted and relatively smart family member. I cannot imagine this not to be the case. (There were reports in 2013 of regime officers complaining to each other that the high command didn’t let them use chemical weapons, so even back then, when knowledge of the existence of chemical weapons was not a secret at all, and when they had more reason to think they might get away with it, and when their victory in the civil war was closer to certainty, the weapons were already relatively well guarded by the top leadership – as you would expect.)

So you’re essentially accusing an Assad family member of not understanding how dangerous it is to use chemical weapons, stealing them from Assad, and using them in the dumbest possible way*, because, that’s what they enjoy to do. MMA fighters or boxers do not always have the smarts to get a degree in medicine, but they usually are smart enough to understand some simple rules, which is why Tyson biting off Holyfield’s ear made the headlines: it was unusual. OK, I guess you think the Assad family acted like Mike Tyson or something, because you think they are as dumb as Tyson, but I think you are wrong.

Besides that, there is the fact that the Trump administration is basing its knowledge on the assessment of the very same Intelligence Community which is out there to impeach him, which let the Iraqi WMD hysteria pass, which let the “Serbs are massacring tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Albanians in Kosovo” lie unchallenged, so which is not a very reliable source. The fact that the Intelligence Community has for years armed Syrian jihadists raises the possibility that they are playing politics here. I bet you they can lie in ways which are not, technically, lies. (I don’t think they dare tell a direct lie to the POTUS, even if the POTUS in question is Trump. But they can use enough weasel language, if they wish to.)

Of course, there’s the sarin thing. They are pretty strongly stating it was sarin (because sarin would make it much more likely that it was the Syrian government, whereas any fool could have chlorine, and I think chlorine is not even a forbidden chemical weapon), when the available evidence is not conclusive, to say the least, and all of it is coming from al-Qaeda and Erdogan.

And, to top it all off, the Russians and Syrians have invited an impartial international investigation to come to the airport from which the attack was alleged to emanate. It might’ve been a bluff. But then, nobody called this bluff. It cannot but raise my previous estimation that it was not this airport (which cannot but raise my suspicions that it wasn’t the Syrian government at all).

Of course, smart people do dumb and risky things all the time. Occasionally they do dumb things in dumb ways, and things which are risky in dumb ways. So I’m not saying that it’s impossible for Assad (or one of his minions) to have committed the chemical attack. I’m saying it’s not very plausible based on evidence coming from al-Qaeda and Erdogan and the Intelligence Community, especially when all of their other statements (that it was sarin and that it came from that particular airport) are also in question, and they are totally uninterested in any impartial investigation.

[MORE]

*Chemical weapons can be used in a number of ways, like against fortified positions, against massed enemy troops preparing to attack (this is the way Aleppo’s defenders have used them, I think), or strategic bombing of enemy cities. It was here allegedly used for the latter, but only one round was used, which is a dumb way to use a chemical weapon.

Lest we forget: Syrian Christians (who will be totally cleansed from Syria in the event of Assad's collapse) are culturally much closer to us than Muslims. Actually, the same is true of Alawites (where women aren't forced to wear hijabs) and the Druze. Genetically speaking, Christians, as well as the rest of the strange sects (Alawites, Druze) are closer to Europeans (less Peninsula Arab ancestry, less Sub-Saharan African ancestry) than Sunni Muslim Arabs. And among Sunni Muslims, the more secular urban elites (which mostly support Assad) are probably the closest to us. Of course, they are closer to us in terms of IQ. On average, it'd be easier to have a conversation about anything with an Assad supporter than with an opposition supporter. (Apparently the Free Syrian Army is more popular than its military strength would indicate. It's probably a case of many lukewarm supporters.)

So, if we take the concentric circles of loyalty (which is normal), it's abnormal to support the dumbest Sunni Muslim factions against the rest.

I am glad to see you so animated and expansive. It is many years since I've been to Hungary, but I always liked German-Hungarians. They always struck me as old style, cheerful German Lutherans stranded behind the Iron Curtain, unlike East Germans who seemed like a bunch of miserable ghits.
You are right about Lebanese and Syrian Christians and heterodox "Muslims" like Druze and Alawites. They were not permitted to take slaves, nor did they want to. They are essentially the same white Caucasian population that inhabited the Levant in Roman times.
I speak from personal experience. I was employed by a Syrian Christian family for several years in their family business. They were the salt of the earth. They were unfailingly helpful and honest. They had come to my homeland after the Ist Gulf War. They told me then that if Saddam Hussein and Assad were overthrown, then all Christians would be in peril. They decided to leave early.
In the scheme of thing, I would be willing to accept every Middle East Christian, and send every Pakistani and other Muslim BACK !

You make a good case, certainly better than any I've seen so far, and you've certainly put a lot of thought into it. You obviously make a lot of assumptions about the internal structure of the Syrian army and ba'ath party which wouldn't be my default assumption, but perhaps you're basing them on something.

My view on the matter is based on
1) Pretty much the entire western media and every supposedly impartial organisation seems to say that it came from the regime. I guess this is not very consistent of me, but it's hard to know when to trust the media and when not. I trust them with tennis results after all. Probably I should reappraise this one.
2) False flags don't really happen that much and they are hard to pull off. Even history's most famous false flag turns out to have not been a false flag after all.
3) People do really shitty things when they are in drawn out wars with people they hate. I hardly think I need to start citing examples. Your allusion to MMA suggests that you don't want to deal with this point.
4) Both sides have already used chemical weapons, though - as with all war crimes - the regime has done more of it.

Is the quote about Kosovo an actual quote? I was in school at the time.

Your points are all valid, and, for what it's worth, I think its undeniable that everything would have been much better had Assad successfully crushed the rebellion at the off. However, you're living in a fantasy world if you think he can just retake power when over half of the country would like nothing better than to slaughter him with their bare hands.

So what should be done? I've already said the only sensible thing is for some other country to run it. Turkey would actually be a good choice. After all they have a much better claim to be rightful rulers of Syria than some Alawite-Socialist mob family who hooked up with the Soviets. Another similar option would be to have small reasonably ethnically homogeneous states under the suzerainty of a regional power.

But all the sane options are ruled out before the discussion begins because in the upside down world order FDR built borders must simultaneously be infinitely porous and inviolable at the same time. So we are left with insane options. Normies fantasize about a moderate opposition that doesn't exist, Alt-Righters fantasize about a Cold War puppet junta somehow regaining the power it has already lost.

What is clear is that anything is better than civil war. The least bad option you can hope for is that something barely sane can be cobbled together out of the less extreme rebels and the old regime. Russia could facilitate this, but one of Putin's worse features is his insistence on backing up leaders till the end, even when, as in Venezuela, they literally destroy their country.

But this has nothing to do with the case in hand, which is Trump's strikes. Someone used chemical weapons. Trump bombed an airbase; now the more intelligent Ba'athists will do a better job of keeping a handle on the hotheads (a fortiori, if you are correct). Trump projected American power after 12 years of non-stop humiliation, he looked decisive, he picked up some free Arab popularity, and he sowed a bit of dissension between liberals and he far left. All that for no downside whatsoever. The closest thing I have got to a coherent explanation of why this is such a disaster is that it undermined your position in a Hungarian internet forum.

you’re living in a fantasy world if you think he can just retake power when over half of the country would like nothing better than to slaughter him with their bare hands.

So we have the highest IQ faction, with the largest support, which also happens to be militarily the strongest, in control of almost all the major population centers, supported by troops and air force by Iran and Russia, and with a relatively sane government, as opposed to militarily weaker, less popular, and dumber head-chopper factions, in control of the desert and Idlib and Raqqa, and you think that it’s insane to think that the former is the only force capable of governing… You top it off with the proposal that the whole thing be ruled by Erdogan, which quite contrary to Europe’s interests, with all of Erdogan’s blackmail, his open call for European Turks (and perhaps other Muslims?) to colonize the place and wage a war of the womb, etc. It is also totally unrealistic (if for nothing else, because neither the Russians nor the Iranians will accept it), unlike Assad’s victory in the civil war, which bound to happen in the absence of American meddling. It is you who is living in a fantasy world, I’m afraid.

Trump projected American power after 12 years of non-stop humiliation, he looked decisive, he picked up some free Arab popularity, and he sowed a bit of dissension between liberals and he far left. All that for no downside whatsoever.

The military channel of communications was closed by the Russians, which makes an accidental conflict between the Russians and the Americans more likely. The Russians are shipping more anti-aircraft weapons to Syria (I bet you they are also supplying them with Russian personnel), which, you guessed it, makes a larger scale conflict more likely. The US also restarted its regime change policy, with all the implications (the deep state is now again allowed to send weapons to the rebels).

By the way, the Syrian Air Force is flying less sorties from that airport as a result of the attacks. They only have probably less than 100 aircraft capable of ground attacks, destroying just one is already more than 1% of the air force, and they destroyed several. The claim that they didn’t weaken Assad is bogus.

So the rebels got stronger as a result, and the Syrian government weaker. The Russians probably also diverted some resources from the campaign to shore up the air defenses instead.

In any event, it made it more likely for him to be dragged into the war if another chemical attack happens. You might be aware that chemical attacks are happening quite regularly in Syria, perpetrated by the rebels. I guess orchestrating a false flag is not simple (especially not for clannish people who don’t want to kill children belonging to their tribe, whatever the benefits), and it could’ve been an accident, but now he cannot just shrug his shoulders if another sad video emerges on teevee. Starting a major war (which he didn’t do, but as I explained above, got closer to do) would destroy his presidency. That’s a risk.

Starting military conflict is always risky, and best be avoided. Only people with no skin in the game don’t understand that. I have a lot of skin in the game – Budapest was flooded with refugees just two summers ago. I want the civil war (and so both the excuse of the warmongers and the excuse for people wanting to force Hungary to accept refugees) to end. Assad is my best bet, and against it you can only offer the fantasy of Syria being colonized by Turks (I guess the Russians would just retreat, if they heard Gabriel on Unz Review proposed that it would be the best solution).

The closest thing I have got to a coherent explanation of why this is such a disaster is that it undermined your position in a Hungarian internet forum.

Great comment, I agree wholeheartedly.
I also don't get why GabrielM thinks there have been "12 years of non-stop humiliation" of American power...that's just a very weird perception from my point of view. Is anything but the most total dominance by the US some sort of "humiliation"?

So we have the highest IQ faction, with the largest support, which also happens to be militarily the strongest, in control of almost all the major population centers, supported by troops and air force by Iran and Russia, and with a relatively sane government, as opposed to militarily weaker, less popular, and dumber head-chopper factions, in control of the desert and Idlib and Raqqa, and you think that it’s insane to think that the former is the only force capable of governing…

unlike Assad’s victory in the civil war, which bound to happen in the absence of American meddling.

Russia and Iran 'support'; America 'meddles'. Got it.

Anyway, either my language was imprecise or you are muddling two issues. Obviously whichever side is strongest will win the war, that's how war's work. Obviously, absent America, the regime will win the war because Iran and Russia are willing to invest more than Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Obviously, in the bare sense of the term, Assad could wield power over the country, (though the same is true of anyone, ISIS included).

What I mean is that it is fantasy to suppose that Assad can rule in normal peacetime fashion. Outside of Moldbuggian thought experiments, you can't have normal civilian government when half (and most people say more than half) the population wants to kill the government.

You top it off with the proposal that the whole thing be ruled by Erdogan blah blah blah

The rest of this paragraph is irrelevant. What I said is that under a sane world order someone else would take over Syria. Turkey is the obvious choice because it ruled Syrian for seven times longer than Syria has been an 'independent' country, and would still be doing so if European countries hadn't 'meddled'. It's interesting to make this statement and watch how baffled people become because it shows how colonized their brains are by obsolete versions of Leftism. But, suffice to say, it was a quip, not a serious suggestion.

I was also perfectly clear about what I view as the best solution given the way things are: Russia gets rid of Assad and cobble together a government with as much of the FSA and some other groups as possible. Such an entity could gain the acquiescence, if not the support, of most of the population, and would have a good shot of keeping violence against minorities to a minimum whilst eliminating ISIS. Since Assad is only President because his brother had a 'car accident', it's not like this is a crazy idea. The thing standing in the way seems to be Putin's 'stand by your man' policy, which is a good principle to hold, but can be taken too far like, for example in Venezuela. I read today that they are eating zoo animals now.

But this is not the main issue, which is whether Trump's strike was a big deal or not.

Starting military conflict is always risky, and best be avoided. Only people with no skin in the game don’t understand that. I have a lot of skin in the game – Budapest was flooded with refugees just two summers ago. I want the civil war (and so both the excuse of the warmongers and the excuse for people wanting to force Hungary to accept refugees) to end. Assad is my best bet

This is bull.
(i) At most Syrians have made up 50% of the refugee flow into Europe. Genuine refugees from Syria, in any case, are mostly content to remain in the Middle East. The immivasion of Europe hinges on one issue: your will to resist.
(ii) No offense, but refugees don't want to go to Hungary. The risk to your country is that Merkel wants to put them there and you can't say no without forgoing a lot of $$$ (my keyboard, perhaps significantly, doesn't have a Euro sign). The future demographics of your country have a lot to do with internal politics in Germany, but not a lot to do with internal politics in Syria.
(iii) If, as you hope, Assad regains military control over the country with Iranian and Russian support, he will use the opportunity to improve the demographics of his minority occupation government. In fact, that's what he has already been doing. A lot of the military tactics you otherwise find so senseless make sense if the goal is to encourage Sunnis to leave the country (which is not a stupid goal at all, from his point of view).

I also have theories why you are holding the positions you have.

I didn't speculate on your motives, I simply repeated what you told me last time I asked the question. Since then you've worked out an explanation, but it would be unutterably rude of me to suggest this was an ex post facto rationalization.

I hate both sides of the invite the world / invade the world, and while Trump promised to do away with both, he’s now backtracking on both. The Syria attack was the last straw that broke the camel’s back. (Of course the media and the NeverTrumpers keep pushing me back to the Trump train.)

I tried to convince a liberal American (and other liberals, including Hungarian and Western European liberals) IRL that the danger of ww3 was actually lower under Trump than under Hillary. (They started the topic by actually telling me they were afraid of ww3 under Trump. Apparently many people thought this.) So yes, I did spend some personal capital on this issue.

I hate both sides of the invite the world / invade the world, and while Trump promised to do away with both, he's now backtracking on both. The Syria attack was the last straw that broke the camel's back. (Of course the media and the NeverTrumpers keep pushing me back to the Trump train.)

I tried to convince a liberal American (and other liberals, including Hungarian and Western European liberals) IRL that the danger of ww3 was actually lower under Trump than under Hillary. (They started the topic by actually telling me they were afraid of ww3 under Trump. Apparently many people thought this.) So yes, I did spend some personal capital on this issue.

IRL that the danger of ww3 was actually lower under Trump than under Hillary.

It is. Relations between the US and Russia are much improved and the attack on Syria had zero military significance, Assad was back to using it the very day the strikes were launched.

Also, the attack was with Tomahawks. You do not use Tomahawks if you want to shut down an airbase for any length of time.

So we have the highest IQ faction, with the largest support, which also happens to be militarily the strongest, in control of almost all the major population centers, supported by troops and air force by Iran and Russia, and with a relatively sane government, as opposed to militarily weaker, less popular, and dumber head-chopper factions, in control of the desert and Idlib and Raqqa, and you think that it's insane to think that the former is the only force capable of governing... You top it off with the proposal that the whole thing be ruled by Erdogan, which quite contrary to Europe's interests, with all of Erdogan's blackmail, his open call for European Turks (and perhaps other Muslims?) to colonize the place and wage a war of the womb, etc. It is also totally unrealistic (if for nothing else, because neither the Russians nor the Iranians will accept it), unlike Assad's victory in the civil war, which bound to happen in the absence of American meddling. It is you who is living in a fantasy world, I'm afraid.

Trump projected American power after 12 years of non-stop humiliation, he looked decisive, he picked up some free Arab popularity, and he sowed a bit of dissension between liberals and he far left. All that for no downside whatsoever.

The military channel of communications was closed by the Russians, which makes an accidental conflict between the Russians and the Americans more likely. The Russians are shipping more anti-aircraft weapons to Syria (I bet you they are also supplying them with Russian personnel), which, you guessed it, makes a larger scale conflict more likely. The US also restarted its regime change policy, with all the implications (the deep state is now again allowed to send weapons to the rebels).

By the way, the Syrian Air Force is flying less sorties from that airport as a result of the attacks. They only have probably less than 100 aircraft capable of ground attacks, destroying just one is already more than 1% of the air force, and they destroyed several. The claim that they didn't weaken Assad is bogus.

So the rebels got stronger as a result, and the Syrian government weaker. The Russians probably also diverted some resources from the campaign to shore up the air defenses instead.

In any event, it made it more likely for him to be dragged into the war if another chemical attack happens. You might be aware that chemical attacks are happening quite regularly in Syria, perpetrated by the rebels. I guess orchestrating a false flag is not simple (especially not for clannish people who don't want to kill children belonging to their tribe, whatever the benefits), and it could've been an accident, but now he cannot just shrug his shoulders if another sad video emerges on teevee. Starting a major war (which he didn't do, but as I explained above, got closer to do) would destroy his presidency. That's a risk.

Starting military conflict is always risky, and best be avoided. Only people with no skin in the game don't understand that. I have a lot of skin in the game - Budapest was flooded with refugees just two summers ago. I want the civil war (and so both the excuse of the warmongers and the excuse for people wanting to force Hungary to accept refugees) to end. Assad is my best bet, and against it you can only offer the fantasy of Syria being colonized by Turks (I guess the Russians would just retreat, if they heard Gabriel on Unz Review proposed that it would be the best solution).

The closest thing I have got to a coherent explanation of why this is such a disaster is that it undermined your position in a Hungarian internet forum.

I also have theories why you are holding the positions you have.

Great comment, I agree wholeheartedly.
I also don’t get why GabrielM thinks there have been “12 years of non-stop humiliation” of American power…that’s just a very weird perception from my point of view. Is anything but the most total dominance by the US some sort of “humiliation”?

Great comment, I agree wholeheartedly.
I also don’t get why GabrielM thinks there have been “12 years of non-stop humiliation” of American power…that’s just a very weird perception from my point of view. Is anything but the most total dominance by the US some sort of “humiliation”?

Is it so much a case of "total dominance," or simply a matter that no one else is bothering to throw their weight around?

I think Alawites are higher IQ than the rest of the Syrian population. Could be much higher, I'm not sure if it's really reliably measured anywhere, but Greg Cochran wrote of Maronite Christians that they had an average IQ of roughly 100. I'm not sure that applies to Alawites, but they, too, have much lower levels of Sub-Saharan admixture, and lower levels of inbreeding. I'd be surprised if they were below 90, even if they are lower than 100. An average IQ of, say, 95, is well within the European range. Which means their talented tenth cannot be very much dumber than European elites. (OK, I guess European elites are dumb enough, but dumb in sophisticated ways, not dumb in dumb ways.)

Setting aside the averages of Alawites. Assad is an ophthalmologist. He was probably granted better grades because of his father, and ophthalmologists are not the sharpest knives in the medical drawer, but still... we're talking about a doctor. He needed to be interested in medicine long enough to sustain him through medical school, and it's probably one of the most difficult fields out there. He could've just opted for a political science degree or something like that. I bet you he's not low IQ, even if probably not genius level either.

His family might be totally dumb, of course, because, as we all know, genetics has nothing to do with intelligence, and having a couple sharp knives in the drawer (like Hafez and Bashar) tells us nothing about the sharpness of the other knives there, but I'd bet you the Assad family members are not significantly dumber than most Western politicians.

Oh, and Assad was said to have destroyed all of his sarin stocks years ago. You (and Trump, and the US Intelligence Community) are implying that he didn't destroy all of it. Possible. But I bet you dollars to donuts that this is among his best-kept secrets, for obvious reasons. Again, positing he's not suffering from Down syndrome or something, which he doesn't seem to. I'll also bet you dollars to donuts that this means that if he has any sarin left, it's under the control of a well-trusted and relatively smart family member. I cannot imagine this not to be the case. (There were reports in 2013 of regime officers complaining to each other that the high command didn't let them use chemical weapons, so even back then, when knowledge of the existence of chemical weapons was not a secret at all, and when they had more reason to think they might get away with it, and when their victory in the civil war was closer to certainty, the weapons were already relatively well guarded by the top leadership - as you would expect.)

So you're essentially accusing an Assad family member of not understanding how dangerous it is to use chemical weapons, stealing them from Assad, and using them in the dumbest possible way*, because, that's what they enjoy to do. MMA fighters or boxers do not always have the smarts to get a degree in medicine, but they usually are smart enough to understand some simple rules, which is why Tyson biting off Holyfield's ear made the headlines: it was unusual. OK, I guess you think the Assad family acted like Mike Tyson or something, because you think they are as dumb as Tyson, but I think you are wrong.

Besides that, there is the fact that the Trump administration is basing its knowledge on the assessment of the very same Intelligence Community which is out there to impeach him, which let the Iraqi WMD hysteria pass, which let the "Serbs are massacring tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Albanians in Kosovo" lie unchallenged, so which is not a very reliable source. The fact that the Intelligence Community has for years armed Syrian jihadists raises the possibility that they are playing politics here. I bet you they can lie in ways which are not, technically, lies. (I don't think they dare tell a direct lie to the POTUS, even if the POTUS in question is Trump. But they can use enough weasel language, if they wish to.)

Of course, there's the sarin thing. They are pretty strongly stating it was sarin (because sarin would make it much more likely that it was the Syrian government, whereas any fool could have chlorine, and I think chlorine is not even a forbidden chemical weapon), when the available evidence is not conclusive, to say the least, and all of it is coming from al-Qaeda and Erdogan.

And, to top it all off, the Russians and Syrians have invited an impartial international investigation to come to the airport from which the attack was alleged to emanate. It might've been a bluff. But then, nobody called this bluff. It cannot but raise my previous estimation that it was not this airport (which cannot but raise my suspicions that it wasn't the Syrian government at all).

Of course, smart people do dumb and risky things all the time. Occasionally they do dumb things in dumb ways, and things which are risky in dumb ways. So I'm not saying that it's impossible for Assad (or one of his minions) to have committed the chemical attack. I'm saying it's not very plausible based on evidence coming from al-Qaeda and Erdogan and the Intelligence Community, especially when all of their other statements (that it was sarin and that it came from that particular airport) are also in question, and they are totally uninterested in any impartial investigation.

*Chemical weapons can be used in a number of ways, like against fortified positions, against massed enemy troops preparing to attack (this is the way Aleppo's defenders have used them, I think), or strategic bombing of enemy cities. It was here allegedly used for the latter, but only one round was used, which is a dumb way to use a chemical weapon.

Lest we forget: Syrian Christians (who will be totally cleansed from Syria in the event of Assad’s collapse) are culturally much closer to us than Muslims. Actually, the same is true of Alawites (where women aren’t forced to wear hijabs) and the Druze. Genetically speaking, Christians, as well as the rest of the strange sects (Alawites, Druze) are closer to Europeans (less Peninsula Arab ancestry, less Sub-Saharan African ancestry) than Sunni Muslim Arabs. And among Sunni Muslims, the more secular urban elites (which mostly support Assad) are probably the closest to us. Of course, they are closer to us in terms of IQ. On average, it’d be easier to have a conversation about anything with an Assad supporter than with an opposition supporter. (Apparently the Free Syrian Army is more popular than its military strength would indicate. It’s probably a case of many lukewarm supporters.)

So, if we take the concentric circles of loyalty (which is normal), it’s abnormal to support the dumbest Sunni Muslim factions against the rest.

Analysis of figures is great, but this analysis reminds me of ‘there are lies, big lies, and statistics’.
It is not my opinion that there is anything wrong with the analysis, just that the most important issue is missing.
What is missing is the decades long fight of old Le Pen with French jews.
This fight does not seem to be over anything important, for an unbiased observer.

Pierre-André Taguieff, Michèle Tribalat, ‘Face au Front national, Arguments pour une contre-offensive’, Paris, 1998
The word offensive in French does not need explanation.
The book is written by two French jews.

No what are the arguments against FN:
1 Old Le Pen does not say thet gas chambers are a fairy tale, he does say that they are an ‘apostrophe’ in history.
The exact translation of the word, its meaning is probably ‘footnote’.
2 Old Le Pen characterised the German occupation as relatively ‘benign’, not too bad, is probably the best translation
3 FN estimates the costs of immigrants far to high.
The larger part of the book is complicated estimations etc. to show that FN is wrong, however, as soon as any immigrant has got the French nationality, the writers no longer see him or her as immigrant.

Now, objectively, if one accepts the six million figure anyone will admit that not all were killed in gas chambers. The total number of deaths in WWI is estimated 60 million, or far more. Four million on sixty is 6.7%. Not impressive.

The German occupation, two or so years ago WWII pictures were found on an attic. The French were startled, full terraces in Paris, single German soldiers walking unarmed through Paris. This is also what an allied officer with the Normandy 1944 invasion said ‘the French were not at all happy with us, familiar with their cozy lives under German occupation’.

Then the immigration costs.
Since nearly two years now France has martial law, numbers of policemen and military on the streets are enormous, all the time more French police men and women are added to the force.
Unemployment in Muslim areas, the banlieuses, is enormous.
Police going there is afraid, they often are attacked.
I do not see how the French ‘immigration’ problem can be solved, Macron, already nicknamed Merkron, seems to want a French Muslim religion.
I hope he succeeds, here, but even if he does, it will take decades.

So in my usual not so modest opinion, FN is right on all three counts.

What then, is the real objection to FN, just nationalism, in my opinion ?
Jews fear the nation state, the multi ethnic Great European Salvation State is their goal, a USA clone.

That's my impression also. It seems similar to India in that respect, with significant very-smart and very-stupid fractions. The country is also less than half Persian, with large nomadic/primitive minorities like Lurs, Baluchis, Kurds, Turkmen and others.

American culture and just their general behavior is very different from the UK, or Australia. Friends of mine have mentioned that in America, you are considered as 'American' once you have a passport; in Australia people are still much more likely to press 'where are you [i]originally[/i] from?'This attitude is changing fast though. I was out recently and asked someone obviously of African descent what country he was from, and several people around interpreted this simple question as 'racist', 'he's Australian!' etc.

Friends of mine have mentioned that in America, you are considered as ‘American’ once you have a passport; in Australia people are still much more likely to press ‘where are you [i]originally[/i] from?’

No, it’s very common to ask that question in America. Less so in the south and west, I think, but in the northeast and upper Midwest white people are usually quite conscious of their ethnic origin, and it’s not an uncommon question to ask.

Cf. that Guardian article where they interviewed Trump voters in Macomb, Michigan (one of the counties that flipped from Obama in 2012 to Trump last year). The guy they interviewed said “I’m not white, I’m European American of Polish descent.” That’s not all that uncommon.

So we have the highest IQ faction, with the largest support, which also happens to be militarily the strongest, in control of almost all the major population centers, supported by troops and air force by Iran and Russia, and with a relatively sane government, as opposed to militarily weaker, less popular, and dumber head-chopper factions, in control of the desert and Idlib and Raqqa, and you think that it's insane to think that the former is the only force capable of governing... You top it off with the proposal that the whole thing be ruled by Erdogan, which quite contrary to Europe's interests, with all of Erdogan's blackmail, his open call for European Turks (and perhaps other Muslims?) to colonize the place and wage a war of the womb, etc. It is also totally unrealistic (if for nothing else, because neither the Russians nor the Iranians will accept it), unlike Assad's victory in the civil war, which bound to happen in the absence of American meddling. It is you who is living in a fantasy world, I'm afraid.

Trump projected American power after 12 years of non-stop humiliation, he looked decisive, he picked up some free Arab popularity, and he sowed a bit of dissension between liberals and he far left. All that for no downside whatsoever.

The military channel of communications was closed by the Russians, which makes an accidental conflict between the Russians and the Americans more likely. The Russians are shipping more anti-aircraft weapons to Syria (I bet you they are also supplying them with Russian personnel), which, you guessed it, makes a larger scale conflict more likely. The US also restarted its regime change policy, with all the implications (the deep state is now again allowed to send weapons to the rebels).

By the way, the Syrian Air Force is flying less sorties from that airport as a result of the attacks. They only have probably less than 100 aircraft capable of ground attacks, destroying just one is already more than 1% of the air force, and they destroyed several. The claim that they didn't weaken Assad is bogus.

So the rebels got stronger as a result, and the Syrian government weaker. The Russians probably also diverted some resources from the campaign to shore up the air defenses instead.

In any event, it made it more likely for him to be dragged into the war if another chemical attack happens. You might be aware that chemical attacks are happening quite regularly in Syria, perpetrated by the rebels. I guess orchestrating a false flag is not simple (especially not for clannish people who don't want to kill children belonging to their tribe, whatever the benefits), and it could've been an accident, but now he cannot just shrug his shoulders if another sad video emerges on teevee. Starting a major war (which he didn't do, but as I explained above, got closer to do) would destroy his presidency. That's a risk.

Starting military conflict is always risky, and best be avoided. Only people with no skin in the game don't understand that. I have a lot of skin in the game - Budapest was flooded with refugees just two summers ago. I want the civil war (and so both the excuse of the warmongers and the excuse for people wanting to force Hungary to accept refugees) to end. Assad is my best bet, and against it you can only offer the fantasy of Syria being colonized by Turks (I guess the Russians would just retreat, if they heard Gabriel on Unz Review proposed that it would be the best solution).

The closest thing I have got to a coherent explanation of why this is such a disaster is that it undermined your position in a Hungarian internet forum.

I also have theories why you are holding the positions you have.

I agree with most of what you say, but hasn’t Fidesz been fairly successfully at keeping out the refugees / migrants?

Also, he let through a lot of them to Germany. In spite of the fence, it's a difficult situation, because some persistent refugees are camping at the border. The fence is fully on the Hungarian side, and so theoretically we're responsible for anybody even on the outside of the fence.

why does Germany need more people? Where would you put another 10 million Germans?

I've never stated I wanted "more" Germans. Some controlled decline with a stabilization at lower levels would be best of course. However the birthrate is so low there will be probably significant problems with keeping a sufficient workforce around and financing the pensions system. Wouldn't be the end of the world either, but this isn't happening in a vacuum...there's intense migration pressure from the failed societies of the Islamic world and from Africa, and somehow it's become established wisdom that the solution to our demographic woes is in accepting migrants from there...which is bound to end in disaster imo.

1. We’ve already started

I don't know about that. It's not that I really understand what's going on in the US, but the whole spectacle around Trump's presidency and the attempts to overthrow him (at least that's what it looks like) is pretty disturbing in a way...doesn't look to me like the sort of people who comment here are "winning" in any way.

The “established wisdom” is of course kind of silly, but it’s not inevitable that it has to become established wisdom. There are societies (Japan, and eastern Europe) that have ultra-low fertility coupled with hostility to mass immigration, and they seem to have made their peace with population decline. As you say, population decline doesn’t have to be a bad thing, and e.g. the Japanese seem to have decided they prefer it to being swamped by Filipinos.

Also, he let through a lot of them to Germany. In spite of the fence, it’s a difficult situation, because some persistent refugees are camping at the border. The fence is fully on the Hungarian side, and so theoretically we’re responsible for anybody even on the outside of the fence.

I was aware that there's a lot of pressure on Poland and Hungary (and the other eastern countries) to take refugees, and I hope they can successfully resist. It's such an absurd thing for the Germans to be pushing anyway, even if you don't object to Muslim migration. Most of the (token) number of refugees that went to the Czech Republic promptly left and moved to Germany anyway.

Needed to be said. Human ethnicities are a bit like their languages - always in flux; the English language cannot be what it is without the Norman invasion.

In the classic sci-fi novel Dune, one of the themes is an idea that once in a while humans go through cataclysmic wars and upheavals that overturn the prevailing order - and all this is nothing we can prevent because it is actually (at its core) the need for human genetic admixing to prevent stagnation. Interesting theory whether one agrees with it or not.

Doing an objective study of history one may come to this conclusion - there are no such things as borders, unless one has the ability and wherewithal to defend them. Now Africans want to settle in Europe and before, Europeans wanted to settle in Africa...que sera sera...

Now...where did those Hittites go? Can find those darn guys anywhere.

Peace.

Talha,

I don’t think any of us here, certainly not me, is arguing for no immigration, genetic admixing, refugees, etc.. I think the rate right now is too high. I like the existence of human phenotypic, physiological and cultural diversity, and as we all know, diversity depends on the existence of some barriers to migration. As I’ve said in the past, I don’t want the Andamanese who are my distant genetic relatives to disappear from the human family (Ancient South Indians, the racial group to which they belonged has more or less disappeared as a distinct group, although they contribute about 70% of the genetic makeup of southern India), and I don’t want phenotypic traits like blue and green eyes, blonde hair, etc.. to disappear either. Yes, change is a constant of human history, that doesn’t inherently tell us whether at any given time a particular change ought to be resisted or accelerated.

It’s sort of true, and sort of not true, that “there are no such things as borders, unless one has the ability and wherewithal to defend them”. Even in the absence of borders, if it wasn’t for large economic disparities between nations, migration would happen at a much lower level.

I wasn't endorsing anything actually - I was laying out plain historical reality. Borders are abstract things unless you are talking a mountain range or a river or an ocean, etc.

Remember what Gore Vidal said, "...history is nothing more than the bloody record of the migration of tribes."

People move around to what they feel is in their advantage, that's what they've always done; what the hell were the Spanish doing in the New World or the Mongols in the Volga? And when they can, they usually send a vanguard of grim men with spears and shields. Just a little while ago, Europeans were establishing nice beach fronts all along the North African coastline because it was nice real estate. And before them, they sent grim men with rifles and bombs.

Europe has a lot to offer, thus people want to move there to better their livelihoods - there's nothing evil or pernicious about it - any more than Swedes wanted to move into America during their crop failures.

A border, if it is to mean anything, is something that others (on the inside) need to have the will to enforce.

I actually expect zero from Europeans and non-Muslims - I think the Muslim world has the wealth and land internally to be able to take care of these people. I only ask Europeans not to stir the pot on a situation that is already boiling over; case in point, the political decapitation of Iraq, Libya, etc. Just stop.

I don’t want the Andamanese who are my distant genetic relatives to disappear from the human family

You may not, but if they don't care about it enough that they only marry within the in-group, then the writing is on the wall - they'll join the Akkadians and other such historical markers.

You would be surprised, it doesn't just go one way. My sister in-law (Swedish) married a swarthy Egyptian fellow (one daughter looks totally European - light eyes, skin, blond - just with slightly crinkly hair - other daughter only got European light skin). I don't think they'll disappear - I mean, if you just look at Bosnians and Albanians who both converted to Islam and were under Ottoman hegemony for centuries - they didn't feel the need to admix much with the Turks. Admixing doesn't happen unless people want it to - certainly not in the West. Promote a "save the whites" campaign or something if this is such an issue or White parents should just teach their children how the priority for them is to marry a White spouse above other considerations - it's not rocket science.

that doesn’t inherently tell us whether at any given time a particular change ought to be resisted or accelerated

Agreed - it is all subjective really. People make the choices in mates they want - check out the Fred Reed article on sexbots - the dysfunctional relationship between white males/females is the biggest hurdle right now. Many people seem to like the concept of "Whiteness" as long as they don't have to deal with marrying White people and having kids with them. Coming back to my example; my wife and her younger sister converted and married darker Muslim guys from a traditional background (between us we have 6 kids and maybe they'll add another). Just me and my wife have more kids than all her 5 cousins (who live in Sweden and are in psuedo-relationships with Whites) combined. Her older sister never converted and married a White guy she had known for 10 years - within two years of her marriage, the guy cheated on her and ran off. After that, she has been through serial relationships with more White guys that either are losers or won't commit. She is nearing 45 - genetic game over. You get a few chances to press that reset button, then it's gone, the human race moves on without your genetic contribution. As I said to another person on this forum; I'm fine with saying (in the genetic sense as a Pakistani) I'm an anchovy-mushroom pizza and White guys are the-works - but if the-works delivery ain't coming, a White woman would be stupid as hell to die starving because she refused to eat the anchovy-mushroom.

if it wasn’t for large economic disparities between nations, migration would happen at a much lower level

I'm sure the Irish liked it just fine on their little island before that nasty potato famine.

Great comment, I agree wholeheartedly.
I also don't get why GabrielM thinks there have been "12 years of non-stop humiliation" of American power...that's just a very weird perception from my point of view. Is anything but the most total dominance by the US some sort of "humiliation"?

Great comment, I agree wholeheartedly.
I also don’t get why GabrielM thinks there have been “12 years of non-stop humiliation” of American power…that’s just a very weird perception from my point of view. Is anything but the most total dominance by the US some sort of “humiliation”?

Is it so much a case of “total dominance,” or simply a matter that no one else is bothering to throw their weight around?

No, I'm seriously wondering where this idea is coming from that somehow the US has shown "weakness" during the last few years and now needs to make clear again who's top dog. Obama may have been less reckless than Bush II (or than Mccain and possibly Romney would have been), but he still was a very interventionist president who inserted American power into all manner of conflicts which are clearly not that important to vital national interests of the US. And yet somehow the US not getting its way in all those conflicts (like not succeeding with the stupid regime change project in Syria) is supposed to be some great "humiliation" that has to be made good by increased belligerency. It's just a really weird perception of what has happened in the last ten years or so imo.

There’s no inherent reason why African countries would be upset with restrictive immigration policies in a particular European country,

I don't know about that, it's obviously not a topic really studied, but it wouldn't surprise me if many Africans actually do feel good about their increasing share of world population and their increasing presence in many parts of the world, especially Europe...it's not like racial sentiments of that kind are unimaginable. Keeping up migration pressure also gives Africans a means to blackmail Europe (plus the economic benefit of remittances by migrants), to exert power over Europeans, and that must be an exhilarating feeling given the tendency of quite a few Africans to blame the continent's ills on colonialism.Admittedly that's anecdotal, but I can't recall ever having read about some African intellectual stating that Europeans have a legitimate interest in preventing African mass immigration to Europe...whereas it would be no problem to find many stating things like "Africa can't be a prison for Africans, global freedom of movement!". I had the misfortune of once sitting through the lecture of one such type (from Cameroon iirc) who basically blasted his audience for "racism" with a lot of postcolonial jargon ("black Atlantic" - one more piece of evidence for the pernicious influence of the Anglosphere on continental Europe) and railed against the (non-existent) "Fortress Europe". Of course he was enthusiastically lauded by the professor who had invited him, and the cucked Germans in the audience all clapped (I didn't, but then I may be atypical in this regard).

I don’t know about that, it’s obviously not a topic really studied, but it wouldn’t surprise me if many Africans actually do feel good about their increasing share of world population and their increasing presence in many parts of the world, especially Europe…it’s not like racial sentiments of that kind are unimaginable.

Oh they’re not unimaginable, and yes, I’m sure at some level many Africans do feel good that Africa is an increasing share of the world population. In practice however, most Africans (just like most Europeans) think in terms of particular ethnic groups, not in terms of ‘race’. The idea of a unified black race doesn’t really make much than a unified white race, and there are plenty of ethnic tensions within Africa just as there are within other parts of the world. The idea of an ‘African union” has been mostly a bust.

I’m sure there are are Africans who get very upset by “fortress Europe”, and I’d guess you find them more among educated elites. (My three years in Africa was spent mostly living among peasants, not among these sorts of folks). In the main though, African people tend to be among the most skeptical in the world of mass immigration into their own countries. Audacious Epigone posted on that a couple years ago, from the GSS, but I can’t look for it right now. It’s not hard to make the case in that context, that consistency should mean they extent the same right to Europeans. Also, in my experience, the most un-PC / pro-HBD remarks I’ve ever heard came from people I lived around in Africa. I think that the slice of Africans who fall in lock-step line with PC / liberal talking points is probably very small, albeit an elite one.

As far as elites go, it’s worth pointing out that the “why don’t you give us more foreign aid and especially family planning aid, and that way you won’t have as many migrants” compromise was suggested to Angela Merkel by the president of Niger. She declined, becase of course she did.

In the main though, African people tend to be among the most skeptical in the world of mass immigration into their own countries. Audacious Epigone posted on that a couple years ago, from the GSS, but I can’t look for it right now. It’s not hard to make the case in that context, that consistency should mean they extent the same right to Europeans.

Well yes, I know that Africans can be quite xenophobic...both towards other Africans and towards "outsiders" like the Indians who were expelled from East Africa. However, people aren't necessarily consistent in their values...people can be very nationalist themselves and still accuse others of "racism" (e.g. Turks who are certainly among the more chauvinistic peoples on earth and have never dealt honestly with their dubious 20th century history really enjoy playing the Nazi card against Germans).
However, I have to admit that my thoughts in the previous post were quite speculative...I don't really have any data that would show what Africans think about those matters.

Also, he let through a lot of them to Germany. In spite of the fence, it's a difficult situation, because some persistent refugees are camping at the border. The fence is fully on the Hungarian side, and so theoretically we're responsible for anybody even on the outside of the fence.

Well, it’s better that they live in Germany than in Hungary, no?

I was aware that there’s a lot of pressure on Poland and Hungary (and the other eastern countries) to take refugees, and I hope they can successfully resist. It’s such an absurd thing for the Germans to be pushing anyway, even if you don’t object to Muslim migration. Most of the (token) number of refugees that went to the Czech Republic promptly left and moved to Germany anyway.

I don't think any of us here, certainly not me, is arguing for no immigration, genetic admixing, refugees, etc.. I think the rate right now is too high. I like the existence of human phenotypic, physiological and cultural diversity, and as we all know, diversity depends on the existence of some barriers to migration. As I've said in the past, I don't want the Andamanese who are my distant genetic relatives to disappear from the human family (Ancient South Indians, the racial group to which they belonged has more or less disappeared as a distinct group, although they contribute about 70% of the genetic makeup of southern India), and I don't want phenotypic traits like blue and green eyes, blonde hair, etc.. to disappear either. Yes, change is a constant of human history, that doesn't inherently tell us whether at any given time a particular change ought to be resisted or accelerated.

It's sort of true, and sort of not true, that "there are no such things as borders, unless one has the ability and wherewithal to defend them". Even in the absence of borders, if it wasn't for large economic disparities between nations, migration would happen at a much lower level.

if it wasn’t for large economic disparities between nations, migration would happen at a much lower level.

This is the point. Once the standard of living of Americans (and Europeans) has been driven down to the levels in less developed countries, the economic motivations for immigration will be gone.

I'm much more a fan of trying to industrialize / develop African and Middle Eastern countries, personally. Though I agree that the modern level of consumption in the United States and probably the richer countries in Europe is unsustainably high. And I also agree that promoting contraception and smaller families in Africa / the ME / parts of South Asia has to be a major priority.

if it wasn’t for large economic disparities between nations, migration would happen at a much lower level.

This is the point. Once the standard of living of Americans (and Europeans) has been driven down to the levels in less developed countries, the economic motivations for immigration will be gone.

I’m much more a fan of trying to industrialize / develop African and Middle Eastern countries, personally. Though I agree that the modern level of consumption in the United States and probably the richer countries in Europe is unsustainably high. And I also agree that promoting contraception and smaller families in Africa / the ME / parts of South Asia has to be a major priority.

I'm much more a fan of trying to industrialize / develop African and Middle Eastern countries, personally. Though I agree that the modern level of consumption in the United States and probably the richer countries in Europe is unsustainably high. And I also agree that promoting contraception and smaller families in Africa / the ME / parts of South Asia has to be a major priority.

I’m much more a fan of trying to industrialize / develop African and Middle Eastern countries, personally.

I agree with you that vast economic disparities between nations, at least at the level we see today, is unjust. I'm in favour of solutions to that, just not solutions that see the erosion of distinct European peoples and nations. In the United States, which doesn't have an ethnic identity in the same way that Poland, Ireland, Denmark, etc. do, I favour a much more liberal immigration policy than I do in Europe.

I don't think any of us here, certainly not me, is arguing for no immigration, genetic admixing, refugees, etc.. I think the rate right now is too high. I like the existence of human phenotypic, physiological and cultural diversity, and as we all know, diversity depends on the existence of some barriers to migration. As I've said in the past, I don't want the Andamanese who are my distant genetic relatives to disappear from the human family (Ancient South Indians, the racial group to which they belonged has more or less disappeared as a distinct group, although they contribute about 70% of the genetic makeup of southern India), and I don't want phenotypic traits like blue and green eyes, blonde hair, etc.. to disappear either. Yes, change is a constant of human history, that doesn't inherently tell us whether at any given time a particular change ought to be resisted or accelerated.

It's sort of true, and sort of not true, that "there are no such things as borders, unless one has the ability and wherewithal to defend them". Even in the absence of borders, if it wasn't for large economic disparities between nations, migration would happen at a much lower level.

Hey Hector,

I wasn’t endorsing anything actually – I was laying out plain historical reality. Borders are abstract things unless you are talking a mountain range or a river or an ocean, etc.

Remember what Gore Vidal said, “…history is nothing more than the bloody record of the migration of tribes.”

People move around to what they feel is in their advantage, that’s what they’ve always done; what the hell were the Spanish doing in the New World or the Mongols in the Volga? And when they can, they usually send a vanguard of grim men with spears and shields. Just a little while ago, Europeans were establishing nice beach fronts all along the North African coastline because it was nice real estate. And before them, they sent grim men with rifles and bombs.

Europe has a lot to offer, thus people want to move there to better their livelihoods – there’s nothing evil or pernicious about it – any more than Swedes wanted to move into America during their crop failures.

A border, if it is to mean anything, is something that others (on the inside) need to have the will to enforce.

I actually expect zero from Europeans and non-Muslims – I think the Muslim world has the wealth and land internally to be able to take care of these people. I only ask Europeans not to stir the pot on a situation that is already boiling over; case in point, the political decapitation of Iraq, Libya, etc. Just stop.

I don’t want the Andamanese who are my distant genetic relatives to disappear from the human family

You may not, but if they don’t care about it enough that they only marry within the in-group, then the writing is on the wall – they’ll join the Akkadians and other such historical markers.

You would be surprised, it doesn’t just go one way. My sister in-law (Swedish) married a swarthy Egyptian fellow (one daughter looks totally European – light eyes, skin, blond – just with slightly crinkly hair – other daughter only got European light skin). I don’t think they’ll disappear – I mean, if you just look at Bosnians and Albanians who both converted to Islam and were under Ottoman hegemony for centuries – they didn’t feel the need to admix much with the Turks. Admixing doesn’t happen unless people want it to – certainly not in the West. Promote a “save the whites” campaign or something if this is such an issue or White parents should just teach their children how the priority for them is to marry a White spouse above other considerations – it’s not rocket science.

that doesn’t inherently tell us whether at any given time a particular change ought to be resisted or accelerated

Agreed – it is all subjective really. People make the choices in mates they want – check out the Fred Reed article on sexbots – the dysfunctional relationship between white males/females is the biggest hurdle right now. Many people seem to like the concept of “Whiteness” as long as they don’t have to deal with marrying White people and having kids with them. Coming back to my example; my wife and her younger sister converted and married darker Muslim guys from a traditional background (between us we have 6 kids and maybe they’ll add another). Just me and my wife have more kids than all her 5 cousins (who live in Sweden and are in psuedo-relationships with Whites) combined. Her older sister never converted and married a White guy she had known for 10 years – within two years of her marriage, the guy cheated on her and ran off. After that, she has been through serial relationships with more White guys that either are losers or won’t commit. She is nearing 45 – genetic game over. You get a few chances to press that reset button, then it’s gone, the human race moves on without your genetic contribution. As I said to another person on this forum; I’m fine with saying (in the genetic sense as a Pakistani) I’m an anchovy-mushroom pizza and White guys are the-works – but if the-works delivery ain’t coming, a White woman would be stupid as hell to die starving because she refused to eat the anchovy-mushroom.

if it wasn’t for large economic disparities between nations, migration would happen at a much lower level

I’m sure the Irish liked it just fine on their little island before that nasty potato famine.

Andamanese are dying off due to their lack of disease resistance (which in itself is probably a result of their long isolation). They don't intermarry at all, quite the opposite (they commit infanticide against mixed-race babies, which is quintessentially evil).

I actually don't have anything against ethnic intermarriage in principle, at the individual level. I'm not attracted to my own ethnic group after all, so it would be pretty inconsistent if I did. I think there's an optimal amount of it though, and that level is below 100%. (That is to say, what's good and healthy for one couple, probably shouldn't be universalized to the whole of society). I think we'd be better off if there were a constant but fairly slow level of cultural and genetic mixing between groups; I don't want a borderless world, obviously, but I also don't want a world of total isolation.

I also am terminally allergic to the idea of telling *individuals* who they should marry or have sex with, including my own hypothetical children. I'd much rather maintain the distinctness of different groups thorugh limiting immigration than by limiting people's sexual and relational freedom.

Also on a more happy note, it's possible that down the line CRISPR - mediated gene editing might let us re-create rare human phenotypes or even create new one. Eye color might be one of the easiest traits to edit, since blue eye color (for example) seems to be controlled by two loci. Maybe gene editing will help replenish genetic and phenotypic diversity to counteract the effects of mass migration in diminishing it.

Also, to be clear, I oppose French imperialism in North Africa, British imperialism in your and my homelands, etc.. (I don't much care that British imperialism in south Asia was racist, but I do care about how badly they mismanaged the economy, resulting in entrenched poverty and famines. The economic growth rate for about 50 years under the British was 0% per capita).

You say Europe has a lot to offer. Will it still have so much to offer with a higher Pakistani population?

As far as I know, Pakistan willing, everyone who likes Anchovy Pizza is totally free to move to Pakistan. So why doesn't that happen?

And note, I could substitute Syria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, lots of places, for Pakistan.

What benefit, name me a single benefit, Europe gets from having Muslim one in any of their nations?

Feel free to make whatever argument you wish. But explain to me any way in which Europe is better off? I guess you could say something about soccer? But that is a bread and circus activity. It wouldn't matter any less if they had a rule where only left handed people could play the game.

AK, I think the immigration part of French public opinion is the best news. IIRC when asked who they liked on the issue more, Le Pen beat Macron something like 50-25%. In other words, a huge chunk of Macrons voters are actually closer to the NF than him. If Fillon had won, which looked likely at the start of the year he was promising to hold a national referendum on the issue. Alas, this looks like yet another lost opportunity to translate an immigration restrictionist political majority into concrete action.

Immigartion into France has gone down dramatically already. To 25 000 last year!

So – Le Pen has already won, just for being there, if you compare these numbers to Germany, which took in another 320 000 in 2016 and will “welcome” 240 000 in 2017 as is estimated by now.

Except for that: Le Pen did not grasp, what’s so obnoxiously wrong about EU-financing. Fillon had better and much clearer ideas about necessary reforms of the French economy (at least) than Le Pen. She should have just cold blodedly copied them. People did not trust her, as far as the economy is concerned – and they did not distrust her for no reason.

I’m much more a fan of trying to industrialize / develop African and Middle Eastern countries, personally.

If this is not possible, what is your plan B?

Plan B is foreign aid, then.

I agree with you that vast economic disparities between nations, at least at the level we see today, is unjust. I’m in favour of solutions to that, just not solutions that see the erosion of distinct European peoples and nations. In the United States, which doesn’t have an ethnic identity in the same way that Poland, Ireland, Denmark, etc. do, I favour a much more liberal immigration policy than I do in Europe.

I do not believe that unjust is the correct word to describe the disparities.

I favor a complete immigration hiatus for the US, legal and illegal, except for Einsteins and supermodels.

I don't see any justification or grounds for saying that European countries are more entitled to use immigration restriction than the US, unless you want to operate from a basis other than the nation state.

I wasn't endorsing anything actually - I was laying out plain historical reality. Borders are abstract things unless you are talking a mountain range or a river or an ocean, etc.

Remember what Gore Vidal said, "...history is nothing more than the bloody record of the migration of tribes."

People move around to what they feel is in their advantage, that's what they've always done; what the hell were the Spanish doing in the New World or the Mongols in the Volga? And when they can, they usually send a vanguard of grim men with spears and shields. Just a little while ago, Europeans were establishing nice beach fronts all along the North African coastline because it was nice real estate. And before them, they sent grim men with rifles and bombs.

Europe has a lot to offer, thus people want to move there to better their livelihoods - there's nothing evil or pernicious about it - any more than Swedes wanted to move into America during their crop failures.

A border, if it is to mean anything, is something that others (on the inside) need to have the will to enforce.

I actually expect zero from Europeans and non-Muslims - I think the Muslim world has the wealth and land internally to be able to take care of these people. I only ask Europeans not to stir the pot on a situation that is already boiling over; case in point, the political decapitation of Iraq, Libya, etc. Just stop.

I don’t want the Andamanese who are my distant genetic relatives to disappear from the human family

You may not, but if they don't care about it enough that they only marry within the in-group, then the writing is on the wall - they'll join the Akkadians and other such historical markers.

You would be surprised, it doesn't just go one way. My sister in-law (Swedish) married a swarthy Egyptian fellow (one daughter looks totally European - light eyes, skin, blond - just with slightly crinkly hair - other daughter only got European light skin). I don't think they'll disappear - I mean, if you just look at Bosnians and Albanians who both converted to Islam and were under Ottoman hegemony for centuries - they didn't feel the need to admix much with the Turks. Admixing doesn't happen unless people want it to - certainly not in the West. Promote a "save the whites" campaign or something if this is such an issue or White parents should just teach their children how the priority for them is to marry a White spouse above other considerations - it's not rocket science.

that doesn’t inherently tell us whether at any given time a particular change ought to be resisted or accelerated

Agreed - it is all subjective really. People make the choices in mates they want - check out the Fred Reed article on sexbots - the dysfunctional relationship between white males/females is the biggest hurdle right now. Many people seem to like the concept of "Whiteness" as long as they don't have to deal with marrying White people and having kids with them. Coming back to my example; my wife and her younger sister converted and married darker Muslim guys from a traditional background (between us we have 6 kids and maybe they'll add another). Just me and my wife have more kids than all her 5 cousins (who live in Sweden and are in psuedo-relationships with Whites) combined. Her older sister never converted and married a White guy she had known for 10 years - within two years of her marriage, the guy cheated on her and ran off. After that, she has been through serial relationships with more White guys that either are losers or won't commit. She is nearing 45 - genetic game over. You get a few chances to press that reset button, then it's gone, the human race moves on without your genetic contribution. As I said to another person on this forum; I'm fine with saying (in the genetic sense as a Pakistani) I'm an anchovy-mushroom pizza and White guys are the-works - but if the-works delivery ain't coming, a White woman would be stupid as hell to die starving because she refused to eat the anchovy-mushroom.

if it wasn’t for large economic disparities between nations, migration would happen at a much lower level

I'm sure the Irish liked it just fine on their little island before that nasty potato famine.

Peace.

Talha,

Andamanese are dying off due to their lack of disease resistance (which in itself is probably a result of their long isolation). They don’t intermarry at all, quite the opposite (they commit infanticide against mixed-race babies, which is quintessentially evil).

I actually don’t have anything against ethnic intermarriage in principle, at the individual level. I’m not attracted to my own ethnic group after all, so it would be pretty inconsistent if I did. I think there’s an optimal amount of it though, and that level is below 100%. (That is to say, what’s good and healthy for one couple, probably shouldn’t be universalized to the whole of society). I think we’d be better off if there were a constant but fairly slow level of cultural and genetic mixing between groups; I don’t want a borderless world, obviously, but I also don’t want a world of total isolation.

I also am terminally allergic to the idea of telling *individuals* who they should marry or have sex with, including my own hypothetical children. I’d much rather maintain the distinctness of different groups thorugh limiting immigration than by limiting people’s sexual and relational freedom.

Also on a more happy note, it’s possible that down the line CRISPR – mediated gene editing might let us re-create rare human phenotypes or even create new one. Eye color might be one of the easiest traits to edit, since blue eye color (for example) seems to be controlled by two loci. Maybe gene editing will help replenish genetic and phenotypic diversity to counteract the effects of mass migration in diminishing it.

The Andamanese have signed their own death warrant then; they have low tolerance for disease and are refusing (violently) to admix with another population that will possibly furnish them this advantage. It is sad, but people cannot escape the consequences of their actions.

That is to say, what’s good and healthy for one couple, probably shouldn’t be universalized to the whole of society

Sure no problems here. Admixing usually happens on a marginal level - like I mentioned of the Bosnians and Albanians. People are usually attracted to their own folks based (not just on looks) but familiarity of religion, language, culture, etc.

limiting immigration than by limiting people’s sexual and relational freedom

This is also tough in this day and age. Again, reference the Free Reed article. White guys talking about going to SE Asia, picking up a young hottie and bringing her here - is that immigration supposed to be stopped? Or does that fall under the marginal category? But I agree, massive immigration is usually a recipe for eventual disaster or conflict.

I wasn't endorsing anything actually - I was laying out plain historical reality. Borders are abstract things unless you are talking a mountain range or a river or an ocean, etc.

Remember what Gore Vidal said, "...history is nothing more than the bloody record of the migration of tribes."

People move around to what they feel is in their advantage, that's what they've always done; what the hell were the Spanish doing in the New World or the Mongols in the Volga? And when they can, they usually send a vanguard of grim men with spears and shields. Just a little while ago, Europeans were establishing nice beach fronts all along the North African coastline because it was nice real estate. And before them, they sent grim men with rifles and bombs.

Europe has a lot to offer, thus people want to move there to better their livelihoods - there's nothing evil or pernicious about it - any more than Swedes wanted to move into America during their crop failures.

A border, if it is to mean anything, is something that others (on the inside) need to have the will to enforce.

I actually expect zero from Europeans and non-Muslims - I think the Muslim world has the wealth and land internally to be able to take care of these people. I only ask Europeans not to stir the pot on a situation that is already boiling over; case in point, the political decapitation of Iraq, Libya, etc. Just stop.

I don’t want the Andamanese who are my distant genetic relatives to disappear from the human family

You may not, but if they don't care about it enough that they only marry within the in-group, then the writing is on the wall - they'll join the Akkadians and other such historical markers.

You would be surprised, it doesn't just go one way. My sister in-law (Swedish) married a swarthy Egyptian fellow (one daughter looks totally European - light eyes, skin, blond - just with slightly crinkly hair - other daughter only got European light skin). I don't think they'll disappear - I mean, if you just look at Bosnians and Albanians who both converted to Islam and were under Ottoman hegemony for centuries - they didn't feel the need to admix much with the Turks. Admixing doesn't happen unless people want it to - certainly not in the West. Promote a "save the whites" campaign or something if this is such an issue or White parents should just teach their children how the priority for them is to marry a White spouse above other considerations - it's not rocket science.

that doesn’t inherently tell us whether at any given time a particular change ought to be resisted or accelerated

Agreed - it is all subjective really. People make the choices in mates they want - check out the Fred Reed article on sexbots - the dysfunctional relationship between white males/females is the biggest hurdle right now. Many people seem to like the concept of "Whiteness" as long as they don't have to deal with marrying White people and having kids with them. Coming back to my example; my wife and her younger sister converted and married darker Muslim guys from a traditional background (between us we have 6 kids and maybe they'll add another). Just me and my wife have more kids than all her 5 cousins (who live in Sweden and are in psuedo-relationships with Whites) combined. Her older sister never converted and married a White guy she had known for 10 years - within two years of her marriage, the guy cheated on her and ran off. After that, she has been through serial relationships with more White guys that either are losers or won't commit. She is nearing 45 - genetic game over. You get a few chances to press that reset button, then it's gone, the human race moves on without your genetic contribution. As I said to another person on this forum; I'm fine with saying (in the genetic sense as a Pakistani) I'm an anchovy-mushroom pizza and White guys are the-works - but if the-works delivery ain't coming, a White woman would be stupid as hell to die starving because she refused to eat the anchovy-mushroom.

if it wasn’t for large economic disparities between nations, migration would happen at a much lower level

I'm sure the Irish liked it just fine on their little island before that nasty potato famine.

Peace.

Also, to be clear, I oppose French imperialism in North Africa, British imperialism in your and my homelands, etc.. (I don’t much care that British imperialism in south Asia was racist, but I do care about how badly they mismanaged the economy, resulting in entrenched poverty and famines. The economic growth rate for about 50 years under the British was 0% per capita).

Is now America - I don't consider myself Pakistani (and frankly, when I visit, my relatives don't either - they know I'm a visitor). I get annoyed when Pakistanis wave their flags on these shores; bring your language, your food, your poetry - but leave your flag elsewhere - as far as I'm concerned, it isn't welcome here. I have lived here since 6, breathed the air, drank the water and the earth that will attest the most to my prostrations on the Day of Judgement is here. I don't know any other; my kids certainly don't. And if I bury my parents here, it'll be the "land where my fathers died".

If I have to leave, I'll have to make a new homeland; which is OK - God has made the earth expansive, He grants it to whom He wills.

Agree with you about British management of the economy - wasn't India outproducing Europe for a very long time?
"By and large, however, in return for their goods Indian merchants insisted on payment in gold or silver. Naturally this was not popular in England and the rest of Europe, and writers on economic affairs in the seventeenth century frequently complained, as did Sir Thomas Roe, that 'Europe bleedeth to enrich Asia.' The demand for articles supplied by India was so great, however, and her requirements of European goods so limited, that Europe was obliged to trade on India's own terms until the eighteenth century, when special measures were taken in England and elsewhere to discourage the demand for Indian goods."
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/ikram/part2_17.html

I agree with you that vast economic disparities between nations, at least at the level we see today, is unjust. I'm in favour of solutions to that, just not solutions that see the erosion of distinct European peoples and nations. In the United States, which doesn't have an ethnic identity in the same way that Poland, Ireland, Denmark, etc. do, I favour a much more liberal immigration policy than I do in Europe.

I do not believe that unjust is the correct word to describe the disparities.

I favor a complete immigration hiatus for the US, legal and illegal, except for Einsteins and supermodels.

I don’t see any justification or grounds for saying that European countries are more entitled to use immigration restriction than the US, unless you want to operate from a basis other than the nation state.

I don’t see any justification or grounds for saying that European countries are more entitled to use immigration restriction than the US, unless you want to operate from a basis other than the nation state.

Let's put it this way. I think both tribal societies and cosmopolitan societies (to use very coarse descriptions) have their costs and benefits. I think most people, most of the time, like to live in relatively homogeneous ethnic communities (that would be the 'tribal') model. However, there are minority groups all over the world who don't have their own nation-states. (The Roma are one, my own Tamil ethnic group in south India is another, until the foundation of the State of Israel Jews were in that position, etc..) And there are individuals who for whatever reason don't feel much attraction to 'their' nation-state. Maybe they don't feel a deep connexion to people like them, maybe they rank high on the "Openness to Experience" personality trait and thrive on difference and diversity, maybe they're really attracted to cultures and groups other than their own, maybe they have differences with their government, maybe they face persecution, maybe they just don't like the weather in Israel or Poland or whaerever. Unless there are strong reasons to prohibit them migrating (and I'm not opposed in principle to countries limiting emigration as well as immigration) I think the world is a better place if people like that have a place to live too. And let's be honest, a lot of Asia and Africa are really terrible places to live, as Talha noted; people do have a legitimate interest in leaving.

That interest has to be balanced against other interests, of course: I don't believe in an abstract right of global freedom of movement. Peoples and nation states have a legitimate interest in preserving the ethnic and cultural identity of their societies, nation states also have an interest in not seeing their most skilled people all leave, and so forth. Freedom of movement is a good that needs to be balanced against many other goods. I think the way to balance competing goods is to have a multiplicity of societies, some with closed borders and others with relatively open ones. I don't want all the world's societies to be open to mass migration, but I think it's a good thing if some, or at least a few, are. It was good for European Jews back in the day that America existed as a sort of refuge, for example. It might be good for European Roma today if they were able to migrate to America. It's good that Talha can live somewhere besides Pakistan, since he clearly doesn't like the idea of living there any more than I would want to live in India. As long as we're going to have a world in which there are some cosmopolitan centers for migration, the US and Canada are the most plausible countries to fill that role.

Where I violently disagree with the liberals is that I don't think America's openness to migration is an unfettered good. It's a fettered good, in other words it comes with serious costs as well as benefits, and it needs to be balanced against other competing goods. I don't want to universalize American immigration policy any more than I would want to universalize communism or capitalism or any other political value-system.

Andamanese are dying off due to their lack of disease resistance (which in itself is probably a result of their long isolation). They don't intermarry at all, quite the opposite (they commit infanticide against mixed-race babies, which is quintessentially evil).

I actually don't have anything against ethnic intermarriage in principle, at the individual level. I'm not attracted to my own ethnic group after all, so it would be pretty inconsistent if I did. I think there's an optimal amount of it though, and that level is below 100%. (That is to say, what's good and healthy for one couple, probably shouldn't be universalized to the whole of society). I think we'd be better off if there were a constant but fairly slow level of cultural and genetic mixing between groups; I don't want a borderless world, obviously, but I also don't want a world of total isolation.

I also am terminally allergic to the idea of telling *individuals* who they should marry or have sex with, including my own hypothetical children. I'd much rather maintain the distinctness of different groups thorugh limiting immigration than by limiting people's sexual and relational freedom.

Also on a more happy note, it's possible that down the line CRISPR - mediated gene editing might let us re-create rare human phenotypes or even create new one. Eye color might be one of the easiest traits to edit, since blue eye color (for example) seems to be controlled by two loci. Maybe gene editing will help replenish genetic and phenotypic diversity to counteract the effects of mass migration in diminishing it.

Andamanese are dying off due to their lack of disease resistance (which in itself is probably a result of their long isolation). They don't intermarry at all, quite the opposite (they commit infanticide against mixed-race babies, which is quintessentially evil).

I actually don't have anything against ethnic intermarriage in principle, at the individual level. I'm not attracted to my own ethnic group after all, so it would be pretty inconsistent if I did. I think there's an optimal amount of it though, and that level is below 100%. (That is to say, what's good and healthy for one couple, probably shouldn't be universalized to the whole of society). I think we'd be better off if there were a constant but fairly slow level of cultural and genetic mixing between groups; I don't want a borderless world, obviously, but I also don't want a world of total isolation.

I also am terminally allergic to the idea of telling *individuals* who they should marry or have sex with, including my own hypothetical children. I'd much rather maintain the distinctness of different groups thorugh limiting immigration than by limiting people's sexual and relational freedom.

Also on a more happy note, it's possible that down the line CRISPR - mediated gene editing might let us re-create rare human phenotypes or even create new one. Eye color might be one of the easiest traits to edit, since blue eye color (for example) seems to be controlled by two loci. Maybe gene editing will help replenish genetic and phenotypic diversity to counteract the effects of mass migration in diminishing it.

Hey Hector,

The Andamanese have signed their own death warrant then; they have low tolerance for disease and are refusing (violently) to admix with another population that will possibly furnish them this advantage. It is sad, but people cannot escape the consequences of their actions.

That is to say, what’s good and healthy for one couple, probably shouldn’t be universalized to the whole of society

Sure no problems here. Admixing usually happens on a marginal level – like I mentioned of the Bosnians and Albanians. People are usually attracted to their own folks based (not just on looks) but familiarity of religion, language, culture, etc.

limiting immigration than by limiting people’s sexual and relational freedom

This is also tough in this day and age. Again, reference the Free Reed article. White guys talking about going to SE Asia, picking up a young hottie and bringing her here – is that immigration supposed to be stopped? Or does that fall under the marginal category? But I agree, massive immigration is usually a recipe for eventual disaster or conflict.

Immigartion into France has gone down dramatically already. To 25 000 last year!

So - Le Pen has already won, just for being there, if you compare these numbers to Germany, which took in another 320 000 in 2016 and will "welcome" 240 000 in 2017 as is estimated by now.

Except for that: Le Pen did not grasp, what's so obnoxiously wrong about EU-financing. Fillon had better and much clearer ideas about necessary reforms of the French economy (at least) than Le Pen. She should have just cold blodedly copied them. People did not trust her, as far as the economy is concerned - and they did not distrust her for no reason.

As if Europe is not full of articles and books about the disaster euro, such as

In the debate with Macron, Le Pen came across as uninformed and unprofessional. She didn't have the numbers right, she looked doomed.

I agree with you, that Sarrazin for example gives a pretty good analysis of the European Union and the Euro. But - big but: Marine Le Pen is simply not able to communicate these facts and thoughts - and I even doubt, that she understands the more complex ones like the OMT-system or the Eurobonds or the masked Italian deficit-spending via credits from Brussels...

As I said: She would have been much better off, if she would have cold-bloodedly copied Fillons concepts, including his proposals for a EU-reform.

PS

Sarrazin did not necessarily opt for the end of the Euro - and I think, he has good reasons for his position.

I wasn't endorsing anything actually - I was laying out plain historical reality. Borders are abstract things unless you are talking a mountain range or a river or an ocean, etc.

Remember what Gore Vidal said, "...history is nothing more than the bloody record of the migration of tribes."

People move around to what they feel is in their advantage, that's what they've always done; what the hell were the Spanish doing in the New World or the Mongols in the Volga? And when they can, they usually send a vanguard of grim men with spears and shields. Just a little while ago, Europeans were establishing nice beach fronts all along the North African coastline because it was nice real estate. And before them, they sent grim men with rifles and bombs.

Europe has a lot to offer, thus people want to move there to better their livelihoods - there's nothing evil or pernicious about it - any more than Swedes wanted to move into America during their crop failures.

A border, if it is to mean anything, is something that others (on the inside) need to have the will to enforce.

I actually expect zero from Europeans and non-Muslims - I think the Muslim world has the wealth and land internally to be able to take care of these people. I only ask Europeans not to stir the pot on a situation that is already boiling over; case in point, the political decapitation of Iraq, Libya, etc. Just stop.

I don’t want the Andamanese who are my distant genetic relatives to disappear from the human family

You may not, but if they don't care about it enough that they only marry within the in-group, then the writing is on the wall - they'll join the Akkadians and other such historical markers.

You would be surprised, it doesn't just go one way. My sister in-law (Swedish) married a swarthy Egyptian fellow (one daughter looks totally European - light eyes, skin, blond - just with slightly crinkly hair - other daughter only got European light skin). I don't think they'll disappear - I mean, if you just look at Bosnians and Albanians who both converted to Islam and were under Ottoman hegemony for centuries - they didn't feel the need to admix much with the Turks. Admixing doesn't happen unless people want it to - certainly not in the West. Promote a "save the whites" campaign or something if this is such an issue or White parents should just teach their children how the priority for them is to marry a White spouse above other considerations - it's not rocket science.

that doesn’t inherently tell us whether at any given time a particular change ought to be resisted or accelerated

Agreed - it is all subjective really. People make the choices in mates they want - check out the Fred Reed article on sexbots - the dysfunctional relationship between white males/females is the biggest hurdle right now. Many people seem to like the concept of "Whiteness" as long as they don't have to deal with marrying White people and having kids with them. Coming back to my example; my wife and her younger sister converted and married darker Muslim guys from a traditional background (between us we have 6 kids and maybe they'll add another). Just me and my wife have more kids than all her 5 cousins (who live in Sweden and are in psuedo-relationships with Whites) combined. Her older sister never converted and married a White guy she had known for 10 years - within two years of her marriage, the guy cheated on her and ran off. After that, she has been through serial relationships with more White guys that either are losers or won't commit. She is nearing 45 - genetic game over. You get a few chances to press that reset button, then it's gone, the human race moves on without your genetic contribution. As I said to another person on this forum; I'm fine with saying (in the genetic sense as a Pakistani) I'm an anchovy-mushroom pizza and White guys are the-works - but if the-works delivery ain't coming, a White woman would be stupid as hell to die starving because she refused to eat the anchovy-mushroom.

if it wasn’t for large economic disparities between nations, migration would happen at a much lower level

I'm sure the Irish liked it just fine on their little island before that nasty potato famine.

Peace.

Well what do you do in Sweden (I take it?)

Is Sweden better off for you being there?

You say Europe has a lot to offer. Will it still have so much to offer with a higher Pakistani population?

As far as I know, Pakistan willing, everyone who likes Anchovy Pizza is totally free to move to Pakistan. So why doesn’t that happen?

And note, I could substitute Syria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, lots of places, for Pakistan.

What benefit, name me a single benefit, Europe gets from having Muslim one in any of their nations?

Feel free to make whatever argument you wish. But explain to me any way in which Europe is better off? I guess you could say something about soccer? But that is a bread and circus activity. It wouldn’t matter any less if they had a rule where only left handed people could play the game.

Also, to be clear, I oppose French imperialism in North Africa, British imperialism in your and my homelands, etc.. (I don't much care that British imperialism in south Asia was racist, but I do care about how badly they mismanaged the economy, resulting in entrenched poverty and famines. The economic growth rate for about 50 years under the British was 0% per capita).

Hey Hector,

my homeland

Is now America – I don’t consider myself Pakistani (and frankly, when I visit, my relatives don’t either – they know I’m a visitor). I get annoyed when Pakistanis wave their flags on these shores; bring your language, your food, your poetry – but leave your flag elsewhere – as far as I’m concerned, it isn’t welcome here. I have lived here since 6, breathed the air, drank the water and the earth that will attest the most to my prostrations on the Day of Judgement is here. I don’t know any other; my kids certainly don’t. And if I bury my parents here, it’ll be the “land where my fathers died”.

If I have to leave, I’ll have to make a new homeland; which is OK – God has made the earth expansive, He grants it to whom He wills.

Agree with you about British management of the economy – wasn’t India outproducing Europe for a very long time?
“By and large, however, in return for their goods Indian merchants insisted on payment in gold or silver. Naturally this was not popular in England and the rest of Europe, and writers on economic affairs in the seventeenth century frequently complained, as did Sir Thomas Roe, that ‘Europe bleedeth to enrich Asia.’ The demand for articles supplied by India was so great, however, and her requirements of European goods so limited, that Europe was obliged to trade on India’s own terms until the eighteenth century, when special measures were taken in England and elsewhere to discourage the demand for Indian goods.”

You say Europe has a lot to offer. Will it still have so much to offer with a higher Pakistani population?

As far as I know, Pakistan willing, everyone who likes Anchovy Pizza is totally free to move to Pakistan. So why doesn't that happen?

And note, I could substitute Syria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, lots of places, for Pakistan.

What benefit, name me a single benefit, Europe gets from having Muslim one in any of their nations?

Feel free to make whatever argument you wish. But explain to me any way in which Europe is better off? I guess you could say something about soccer? But that is a bread and circus activity. It wouldn't matter any less if they had a rule where only left handed people could play the game.

Hey Sunbeam,

I’m in the US.

What benefit, name me a single benefit, Europe gets from having Muslim one in any of their nations?

But explain to me why you wish to exist here, instead of in Pakistan? I can imagine many reasons.

But in the end you choose to be here instead of in Pakistan. So why is this place better for you than your native country? And why exactly is that the case? I mean why exactly do you find living here better than Pakistan?

And if too many Talhas came here, why wouldn't this country just become another Pakistan? Where's your grandkid going to move then?

Then explain to me, how I benefit in any manner from you being in the US.

This isn't about you. It's about me. Explain to me what loss would occur if you went home?

Macron’s vote total like Clinton’s is meaningless.
Both were given their ‘votes’ or their ‘vote numbers’ simply made up from air.
The System controlling Macron/France learned from The System in America
and made sure the corruption would be complete.
Clinton received maybe 15 million to 20 million actual votes(there are that many corrupt and stupid people).
Mac received enough actual votes to fill a popcorn box.
He was simply declared the winner.

What benefit, name me a single benefit, Europe gets from having Muslim one in any of their nations?

Don't know - ask them. Maybe they want lessons in how to breed.

Peace.

“I’m in the US. ”

Why don’t you go back to Pakistan? Sure, sure xenophobia got it.

But explain to me why you wish to exist here, instead of in Pakistan? I can imagine many reasons.

But in the end you choose to be here instead of in Pakistan. So why is this place better for you than your native country? And why exactly is that the case? I mean why exactly do you find living here better than Pakistan?

And if too many Talhas came here, why wouldn’t this country just become another Pakistan? Where’s your grandkid going to move then?

Then explain to me, how I benefit in any manner from you being in the US.

This isn’t about you. It’s about me. Explain to me what loss would occur if you went home?

I like it here - a lot of Pakistan is quite a mess isn't it? Why would I go back? If I leave to the Muslim world I may settle in Selangor or Amman or Alexandria or Madinah.

I mean why exactly do you find living here better than Pakistan?

Wow - I actually have to explain that one? Really? I like living here instead of Pakistan for the same reason you do - it's not rocket science.

Also, my wife doesn't want to leave - she is a native-born White American of Swedish heritage. She has this funny notion that she has as much right to be here as you do...who listens to their husbands these days?

Explain to me what loss would occur if you went home?

I manage a web development group. My IT director has stated he doesn't know how he would manage without me - so there's that. I'm also on my local town's telecom advisory committee. And I have a great relationship with my neighbors.

how I benefit in any manner from you being in the US

Bro, if you don't feel you get any benefit then get with your congressman/senator and other representatives and tell them to officially send out a Federal notice that all Muslim immigrants are being stripped of citizenship and are supposed to leave. I'm not going to beg massa' to let my po' house nigga' self to stay. If the US population overwhelmingly wants legal deportation - I promise, I won't fight. I mean - I might laugh next time Westerners want to lecture Muslims about civil rights.

But I'm a husband and a father - you don't really expect me to tell my wife and kids to start packing their bags because some anonymous internet guy doesn't feel I bring any benefit to his life - do you? Do you live your life like that?

Your points are all valid, and, for what it's worth, I think its undeniable that everything would have been much better had Assad successfully crushed the rebellion at the off. However, you're living in a fantasy world if you think he can just retake power when over half of the country would like nothing better than to slaughter him with their bare hands.

So what should be done? I've already said the only sensible thing is for some other country to run it. Turkey would actually be a good choice. After all they have a much better claim to be rightful rulers of Syria than some Alawite-Socialist mob family who hooked up with the Soviets. Another similar option would be to have small reasonably ethnically homogeneous states under the suzerainty of a regional power.

But all the sane options are ruled out before the discussion begins because in the upside down world order FDR built borders must simultaneously be infinitely porous and inviolable at the same time. So we are left with insane options. Normies fantasize about a moderate opposition that doesn't exist, Alt-Righters fantasize about a Cold War puppet junta somehow regaining the power it has already lost.

What is clear is that anything is better than civil war. The least bad option you can hope for is that something barely sane can be cobbled together out of the less extreme rebels and the old regime. Russia could facilitate this, but one of Putin's worse features is his insistence on backing up leaders till the end, even when, as in Venezuela, they literally destroy their country.

But this has nothing to do with the case in hand, which is Trump's strikes. Someone used chemical weapons. Trump bombed an airbase; now the more intelligent Ba'athists will do a better job of keeping a handle on the hotheads (a fortiori, if you are correct). Trump projected American power after 12 years of non-stop humiliation, he looked decisive, he picked up some free Arab popularity, and he sowed a bit of dissension between liberals and he far left. All that for no downside whatsoever. The closest thing I have got to a coherent explanation of why this is such a disaster is that it undermined your position in a Hungarian internet forum.

I'm very far Left, at least as far as economics go, but there can be no doubt that Mr. Maduro has been disastrous for Venezuela, and to a large extent the seeds of the disaster were there under Chavez, although at least he managed to keep things running fairly well under 2010 or so. Thie root of the problem (well, one of them) is that Chavez chose to prioritize social spending and to systematically under-invest in maintaining PDVSA's productive capacity. (Number of barrels produced per year declined even when the economy was growing). This has nothing to do with socialism or communism *per se* (the Eastern Bloc economies tend to invest a high proportion of their government revenues, which was one reason people complained about the poor quality of consumer goods). It's a problem of left-populism more than it is a problem of communism, although Chavez was never really just a left-populist. That being said, whatever you call it, Chavez made some very serious errors in running the country and Maduro just made them worse.